ORDER : 1. Seeking to declare that G.O.Rt.No.191, M.A. (E2), dated 18.02.2003 and Memo No.10396/Vig.III (1)/2002, dated 13.09.2023 of respondent No.1 are illegal, arbitrary and vitiated on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to take steps to release due service pension and other retiral benefits from the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2003 along with permissible rate of interest immediately, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Murali Krishna, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has joined in the then Andhra Pradesh Secretarial Service as LDC in January, 1968. Later, he was promoted as an Assistant Section Officer in 1975, further promoted as Section Officer in 1990. Further, as provided under Rule I, he was considered and deputed to work as MRO in West Godavari District for a period of three years from 1993 to 1995. Subsequently, he was appointed by transfer as Municipal Commissioner in the year 1995 and thereafter promoted as Special Grade Commissioner in the year 1997 and further promoted as Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner in the year 1999. Further, while working as Municipal Commissioner, LB Nagar Municipality, Hyderabad, he retired from service in June, 2003, on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he retired in the year 2003, still he is being paid provisional pension only on account of tendency of departmental proceedings inspite of the fact that he worked as Municipal Commissioner, Nizamabad, for a very short period of three months in the year 2000. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Municipal Commissioner at L.B. Nagar Municipality, respondent No.1 has issued impugned order vide G.O.Rt.No.191, dated 18.02.2003, framing three charges, which are not specific and distinct in nature. As such, they are violative of TS CS (CCA) Rules, 1991. Further, the said charges are relating to inaction in taking steps to raise the demands in collection of advertising tax, failure to supervise the Town Planning officials in advertisement boards erected and failure in maintenance of proper records of advertisement boards. As such, they are violative of TS CS (CCA) Rules, 1991. Further, the said charges are relating to inaction in taking steps to raise the demands in collection of advertising tax, failure to supervise the Town Planning officials in advertisement boards erected and failure in maintenance of proper records of advertisement boards. To the said charges, petitioner has submitted his detailed statement of defence denying the charges and explaining valid reasons thereof. Subsequently, during the course of enquiry, he also submitted further statement of defence along with a copy of G.O.Ms.No.549, dated 30.11.2001 which prescribes the duties and responsibilities of various officials working in Municipalities. However, without considering the same, a common enquiry was ordered vide G.O.Rt.No.645 dated 05.05.2008 against nine Charged Officers, including the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer i.e. Commissioner of Inquiries conducted enquiry and submitted a common enquiry report on 30.10.2009 i.e. after a lapse of more than 6 ½ years from issuance of charge memo dated 18.02.2003. Further, after a lapse of 15 years, the present impugned show cause notice vide Memo No.10396/Vig.III (1)/2002, dated 13.09.2023, has been issued by respondent No.1 indicating the decision already taken to impose the penalty, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 25.09.2023 narrating all the lapses on the part of the respondents in concluding the departmental enquiry and further stating that though he was not the Commissioner of Nizamabad Municipality for the financial year 2000-2001, yet, the authorities have framed the charges against the petitioner for the said period, which is bad in law and therefore requested to drop the proceedings and release the denied pension and retirement gratuity and encashment of Earned Leave. Thus, the learned counsel contends that in view of the settled law, the very charge memo initiating departmental proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.191, dated 18.02.2003, as well as the show cause are liable to be set aside on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of departmental proceedings. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved against Charged Officers 1 to 7 in general way and the charges are directly proved against Charged Officers 8 and 10 since they had the primary responsibility of attending to the particular item of work on which the charges have been based. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved against Charged Officers 1 to 7 in general way and the charges are directly proved against Charged Officers 8 and 10 since they had the primary responsibility of attending to the particular item of work on which the charges have been based. Further, in respect of the Charged Officer No.8 against whom the charges are directly proved holding that he is primarily responsible, respondent No.1 has dropped the charges vide G.O.Rt.No.1842, dated 27.12.2008. Petitioner herein is Charged Officer No.6. Therefore, the action of the respondents in proposing to impose punishment upon the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. Hence, the learned counsel prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that based on the recommendation of the General Administration (V&E) Department and advice of the Advisory Bodies, the Government has initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued Article of Charge against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.191, MA & UD (E2) Dept., dated 18.02.2002, for which, the petitioner has submitted his written Statement of Defence on 28.03.2003 and after examining the same, the Government has appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry on the charges framed against the petitioner. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the Enquiry Report to the Government vide D.O.Lr.No.608/COI-CL/A2/2008, dated 31.10.2009 holding that the charges against the petitioner, the then Municipal Commissioner, are proved. Further, the Enquiry Report was communicated to the petitioner in terms of Rule 21 (2) of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, vide Government Memo dated 08.02.2010 calling for his explanation on the Enquiry Officer’s findings. Thereafter, the Government after careful examination of matter in consultation with Advisory Body, provisionally decided to impose the punishment of cut in pension equivalent to withholding of 2 increments without cumulative effect besides recovery of an amount of Rs.1.99 lakhs from the petitioner. Further, after getting advice from the Advisory Body, the Government has decided to impose the penalty of 8% cut in pension for a period of 2 years and issued Show cause Notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation vide Memo dated 13.09.2023. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 25.09.2023. Further, after getting advice from the Advisory Body, the Government has decided to impose the penalty of 8% cut in pension for a period of 2 years and issued Show cause Notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation vide Memo dated 13.09.2023. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 25.09.2023. Learned Government Pleader further submits that in view of discharge of both Enquiry Officers for different reasons, report on calculation for change of punishment from Annual Grade Increment into pension percent took time and the same caused delay in concluding the punishment in the present case. Therefore, the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned show cause notice and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in June, 2003 whereas the impugned charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.191 was issued on 18.02.2003 i.e. just four months prior to the date of his retirement, framing the following three charges: “Charge No.1: That he had not taken any steps to raise the demand in collection of Advertisement Tax. Charge No.2: That he had failed to supervise the Town Planning Officials to identify the advertisement boards erected in the Municipality and to collect the tax on it. Charge No.3: That he had failed to see that proper records with regards to advertisement boards are maintained by the staff.” 9. Here it is pertinent to refer Rule 20 sub-rule (3) of CCA Rules, which reads as under: “Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government Servant under this Rule and Rule 21, the Disciplinary Authority or the Controlling Authority who is not designated as Disciplinary Authority and who is subordinate to the Appointing Authority can draw up or cause to be drawn up: (i) The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. (ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain: (a) A statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant. (b) A list of documents by which and a list of witness by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. 10. (b) A list of documents by which and a list of witness by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. 10. A plain reading of the charges framed against the petitioner, stated supra, clearly reveals that the charges are vague in nature and are contrary to Rule 20 (3) of CCA Rules. 11. Further, though the Charge Memo was issued in the year 2003, the respondents took their own time i.e. more than six years for concluding the common enquiry against petitioner and 9 other Charged Officers. Finally, on 30.10.2009, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report holding as under: “In the light of the above discussions, I come to the conclusion that the charges of lack of supervision against C.Os.1 to 7 are proved in a general way though degree of individual responsibility will be at variance. The charges against C.O.8 and C.O.10 are directly proved because they had the primary responsibility of attending to the particular item of work on which the charges have been based.” Petitioner herein is Charged Officer No.6 and therefore the charges proved against the petitioner were in a general way. Further, in respect of one D. Ramesh Babu, Charged Officer No.10, against whom the charges were proved directly, the Government has dropped further action vide G.O.Rt.No.1842, MA & UD (E2) Department, dated 27.12.2008. The case of the petitioner stands on a better footing than that of Charged Officer No.10 since the charges were held proved against the petitioner in a general way. Relevant observations of the Enquiry Officer made in the Enquiry Report are reproduced hereunder for better adjudication of the matter: “In view of the submissions made above with facts and figures and in view of the observations of the Government fixing accountability and responsibility over the Town Planning Officer and Town Planning Subordinates in regard to detection and assessment of advertisement tax and in view of the steps taken by him in supervising this aspect in the review meetings conducted regularly and issue of instructions from time to time to plug leakages of revenue under tax and non-tax resources. It is not justifiable to make him responsible for the short period of his stay of 3 to 4 months in Nizamabad Municipality . He denied the three charges framed against him and therefore requested to drop further action.” (Emphasis added) 12. It is not justifiable to make him responsible for the short period of his stay of 3 to 4 months in Nizamabad Municipality . He denied the three charges framed against him and therefore requested to drop further action.” (Emphasis added) 12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondents in exonerating the Charged Officer No.10, against whom the charges were directly proved, while proposing to impose punishment upon the petitioner-Charged Officer No.6, against whom the charges were proved only in a general way, amounts to discriminatory in nature. 13. That apart, the respondents have taken 20 years of time from the date of issuance of charge memo till issuance of present impugned show cause notice indicating to impose penalty upon the petitioner. 14. In P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board , (2005) 6 SCC 636 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the official concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 15. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 15. Similarly, in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan , (1998) 4 SCC 154 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the fact of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse conditions. 16. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse conditions. 16. Further, in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabash Chandra Mirdha , (2012) 11 SCC 565 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the delay in initiating or concluding enquiry proceedings causes prejudice to the delinquent; as such the same is also a ground for quashing the charge itself. 17. Admittedly, in the present case, the charge memo was issued in February, 2003, the Enquiry Report was submitted on 31.10.2009 and the impugned show cause notice proposing to impose the penalty was issued in September, 2023. Thus, the respondents took their own time of two decades i.e. 20 years to conclude the departmental proceedings. Therefore, in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, this Court is of the view that the charge sheet itself is liable to be set aside on the ground of delay. 18. For the afore-mentioned reasons, the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.191, dated 18.02.2003 and Memo dated 13.09.2023 issued by respondent No.1 are liable to be set aside. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.191, M.A. (E2), dated 18.02.2003 and Memo No.10396/Vig.III (1)/2002, dated 13.09.2023 issued by respondent No.1 are set aside and the respondents are directed to release due service pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner from the date of his retirement, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.