ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notification dated 05.12.2017, by which a departmental enquiry is sought to be initiated against the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsels Shri Sabeel Ahmed and Shri Mohammed Abrar appearing for the petitioner; learned AGA Smt. Girija S.Hireamth appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4; learned counsel Shri Anil Kale appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3; and learned counsel Shri S.S. Chalavadi appearing for respondent No.5. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: In the year 2010, it transpires that a crime in Crime No.201 of 2010 comes to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC, on a trap that was laid against one Parameshi, who was a task force employee in the City Municipal Corporation (CMC). The petitioner was a First Division Assistant working in the said CMC, in which the said daily wage employee - Parameshi was trapped. The issue does not relate to criminal proceedings. 4. On 01.06.2016, the first respondent, Department of Urban Development, issues a show cause notice to the petitioner and four others, calling for explanation by initiation of a departmental enquiry. The petitioner submits his reply on 24.06.2016 to the said show cause notice. On 05.12.2017, after about 18 months of the submission of reply, departmental enquiry was sought to be instituted, against the petitioner alone and dropping the enquiry proceedings, against others. The reason for continuing departmental enquiry against the petitioner is that, he has not submitted his reply, while the other employees had submitted the reply and against them the enquiry was closed. This happens on 05.12.2017. One Shri V.P. Jagirdar, a retired District Judge, an Enquiry Officer, was appointed, first in line, on 05.12.2017 to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. The said Enquiry Officer does not move a piece of paper. A second enquiry officer is appointed on 29.01.2018 to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. This time a retired District Judge Shri A.M. Pattar is appointed. He also would not move a piece of paper towards the enquiry proceedings. The said Enquiry Officer does not move a piece of paper. A second enquiry officer is appointed on 29.01.2018 to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. This time a retired District Judge Shri A.M. Pattar is appointed. He also would not move a piece of paper towards the enquiry proceedings. Then comes the third Enquiry Officer, one Shri B.V. Prakash, a retired District Judge to hold an enquiry against the petitioner, who is said to have done some exercise of movement of papers or correspondences by issuing summons to the witnesses named in the articles of charge as was issued to the petitioner. The said summons was issued on 16.07.2021 and later, there is absolute silence. 5. Four years pass by the petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2025. The terminal benefits of the petitioner are not settled on the score that the aforesaid departmental enquiry is pending against him. On the said premise, the petitioner has approached this Court in the subject petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that very initiation of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner is on a wrong premise that the petitioner has not submitted his reply. Four other Officers who were sought to be proceeded departmentally, the proceedings against them are dropped considering their reply. The petitioner had submitted his reply, but the same is not taken into consideration and a departmental enquiry is sought to be instituted. Learned counsel would further submit that there are three enquiry officers who have done nothing to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner for the last eight years, as the first of the appointment was on 05.12.2017. He would submit that his terminal benefits are now withheld on the score that the aforesaid departmental enquiry is pending consideration. Learned counsel would seek quashment of the very notification that he appointed the first enquiry officer or subsequent enquiry officers. 7. Learned HCGP would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03.11.2025, the fourth enquiry officer is appointed to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, if a timeline is fixed, the State would now diligently hold the departmental enquiry and conclude the enquiry within the time frame so fixed by the Court. 7. Learned HCGP would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03.11.2025, the fourth enquiry officer is appointed to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, if a timeline is fixed, the State would now diligently hold the departmental enquiry and conclude the enquiry within the time frame so fixed by the Court. Learned HCGP submits that the petitioner should not be led to go scot-free and terminal benefits should not be ordered as the departmental enquiry has to conclude. 8. Learned counsel representing the respondent Corporation also toe the lines of the State. 9. Learned counsel Shri Anil Kale appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that, in the criminal proceedings there is no allegation against the petitioner, but it was against the said Parameshi whose reference is made hereinabove. The petitioner is now a charge sheet witness No.5 in the said proceeding and not an accused at any point in time. Therefore, insofar as the criminal case is concerned, the petitioner is blame free. It is a submission of the learned counsel, Shri Anil Kale. 10. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. 11. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates and link in the chain of events though not in dispute would require certain iteration. The petitioner is a First Division Assistant working in the fifth respondent – City Municipal Corporation, Ballari, which comes within the first respondent. A trap is laid against one Parameshi, who was a daily wage employee in the said Corporation. The petitioner had nothing to do with the said trap. Five people were sought to be proceeded departmentally, and therefore, show cause notice cum charge sheet is issued against all the five on 01.06.2016. The petitioner submits his reply to the said charge sheet as is submitted by the other four. The reply submitted by the petitioner reads as follows: 12. It is the same or identical reply that was submitted by the other four. Notwithstanding the same, an enquiry officer comes to be appointed to hold the enquiry against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted his reply to the charge sheet which on the face of it is erroneous as the petitioner has submitted his reply which is quoted herein above. Notwithstanding the same, an enquiry officer comes to be appointed to hold the enquiry against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted his reply to the charge sheet which on the face of it is erroneous as the petitioner has submitted his reply which is quoted herein above. The order appointing the first enquiry officer is dated 05.12.2017 reads as follows: 13. The said enquiry officer against the petitioner does not move a piece of paper. Then comes the appointment of a second Enquiry Officer by an order dated 29.01.2018. It reads as follows: 14. He also would not move a piece of paper. Three years pass by, comes the third enquiry officer on 21.05.2021. The said enquiry officer holds proceedings on one particular day i.e., on 16.07.2021, but only issues notice to the witnesses. Nothing happens thereafter except ticking of time. Four years pass by, the petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2025. The terminal benefits of the petitioner are completely withheld on the score that the aforesaid departmental enquiry is pending pursuant to issuance of a charge sheet dated 01.06.2016 and appointment of enquiry officer. When the matter comes up on 03.11.2025, this Court passes the following order: “The petitioner is before this Court alleging that since 05.03.2017, i.e. passage of 8 years, the enquiry officer has not completed the enquiry. The enquiry was initiated against 8 people. 6 are exonerated by the impugned order. 2 are sought to be proceeded. The sword of a departmental inquiry is hanging on the head of this petitioner for the last 8 years. Therefore, the learned HCGP to secure instructions as to why it has taken 8 years for the enquiry officer to complete the proceedings or the disciplinary authority to pass necessary orders in the event the enquiry proceedings have stood completed in the interregnum, failing which, it would, on the face of it, become cross abuse of power which would result in imposition of exemplary costs upon the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer for having sat over the enquiry for close to 8 years doing nothing. List this matter on 18.11.2025 in fresh matters list. List this matter on 18.11.2025 in fresh matters list. Instructions be sought with regard to the enquiry by then and if the enquiry is pending still, an affidavit of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority to be filed before the Court as to why there has been delay of 8 years. List on 18.11.2025.” 15. In the light of the said order, the State again wakes up from slumber and appoints the fourth enquiry officer to hold an enquiry and complete the enquiry. Learned HCGP would seek to defend this action by contending that the fourth enquiry officer must be permitted to continue the proceedings. The said submission is noted only to be rejected. 16. The error has not happened in appointment of the fourth enquiry officer. The very first enquiry officer appointed was in error, as the reason for appointing the enquiry officer was there was no reply from the hands of the petitioner while there was a reply, the reply of the petitioner was identical to other employees whose departmental enquiry gets dropped on accepting the reply. The petitioner is sought to be singled out and proceeded departmentally. It would have been altogether a different circumstance, if the departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner had been concluded eight years ago. Eight years, the State has taken to move piece of paper on the table of departmental enquiry. Fourth enquiry officer is now appointed to conduct an enquiry which on the face of it was illegal to have initiated even on 05.12.2017. 17. Therefore, on the sheer score of the State having changed enquiry officer after enquiry officer who would not want to hold the enquiry and in the teeth of the passage of time, the sword of departmental enquiry is hanging on the head of this petitioner for eight years and still hangs on his head after his retirement, if this cannot be termed as an abuse of power on the part of the disciplinary authority, I fail to understand what else can be abuse of power of initiation of a departmental enquiry and keeping it pending or continuing against an employee. The petition thus deserves to succeed not success simplicitor, it would be with exemplary costs of litigation on the petitioner and interest for non-payment of terminal benefits on his retirement. 18. The petition thus deserves to succeed not success simplicitor, it would be with exemplary costs of litigation on the petitioner and interest for non-payment of terminal benefits on his retirement. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER: (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 05.12.2017 stands quashed with costs of litigation at Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner on retirement becomes entitled to receive pension and other terminal benefits from 30.08.2025, one month after his retirement, if it has not been paid. Therefore, the pension and other terminal benefits shall be settled to the petitioner within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (iv) In the event, the petitioner’s terminal benefits are not settled within four weeks, the petitioner becomes entitled to interest at 12% per annum From the date it fell due till the date it is to be paid. Ordered accordingly.