ORDER : Seeking to declare the order passed by respondent No.2 in R.No.3025/V3/V2.2007, dated 13.01.2022, as confirmed by respondent No.1 in Appeal Memo No.593/Tr.Vig/2023, dated 19.10.2024, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same and further to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Administrative Officer (A.O), the present Writ Petition is filed. 2) Heard Sri Mahadev Anyarambhatla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant at Driving Test Track, Nagole, Hyderabad, during a surprise check conducted by the ACB officials, the petitioner was allegedly found in shortage of Rs.242/- in the Government cash in respect of sale of holograms and allowed two private persons inside the cabin for collecting illegal gratification than the prescribed fee and that there was unaccounted cash of Rs.6410/- found in the cabin kept in a casserole. To the said charges, the petitioner filed a reply denying the charges. However, without considering the same, an Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Based on the said Enquiry Report, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 13.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the same was confirmed by respondent No.1 in appeal vide impugned Memo dated 19.10.2024. 3.1) Learned counsel has contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected without assigning any valid reasons and as the appeal is a substantial right, the Appellate Authority is supposed to consider each and every contention raised by the petitioner and arrive at its own independent finding in respect of each charge with reference to the evidence placed. However, the Appellate Authority did not consider any one of the submissions made by the petitioner and as such the order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the Appellate Authority did not consider any one of the submissions made by the petitioner and as such the order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has further contended that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Administrative Officer should have been considered by adopting sealed cover procedure. Further, the punishment imposed is already executed as the period of two years is over. However, relying upon such punishment, the case of the petitioner for promotion is not being considered by the respondents, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. 3.2) Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the dates of events and submitted that the surprise check was conducted on 18.04.2007, departmental proceedings were directed to be initiated on 06.11.2008, charge memo was issued on 26.11.2008 for the incident occurred 18.04.2007, and the petitioner has submitted his explanation immediately thereafter. But, without considering the same properly, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he concluded the enquiry with a delay of 8 years and submitted his report on 30.11.2016. Two years thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued notice on 04.12.2018 and called for the explanation of the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. However, the impugned punishment order was passed on 13.01.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, the entire departmental proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside on the ground of delay. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the punishment order dated 13.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the order in appeal dated 19.10.2024 passed by respondent No.1. Reliance has been placed on P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board , (2005) 6 SCC 636 . 4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that consequent to surprise check conducted by ACB officials over RTA, Driving Test Track, Nagole, Hyderabad, on 18.04.2007, the Government in Memo No.5352/Vig.III 1/07-2, dated 06.11.2008, has requested respondent No.2 to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and others. Accordingly, charges were framed against the petitioner and others vide Charge Memo No.3025/V3/2007, dated 26.11.2008, and after careful examination of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer has been appointed for conducting a common enquiry against all the delinquents. Accordingly, charges were framed against the petitioner and others vide Charge Memo No.3025/V3/2007, dated 26.11.2008, and after careful examination of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer has been appointed for conducting a common enquiry against all the delinquents. After conducting the detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved vide Enquiry Report dated 30.11.2016 and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide Office Memo dated 04.12.2018 and on receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner has submitted his further representation. The Disciplinary Authority, after careful examination of the further representation and on receipt of the instructions of the Government, has imposed the penalty of “Stoppage of Two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect” vide Proceedings No.3025/V3/V2/2007-1, dated 13.01.2022. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the petitioner has filed an appeal before respondent No.1. After careful examination of the material on record, respondent No.1 has rejected the said appeal vide Government Memo No.593/Tr.Vig/2023, dated 19.10.2024, observing that the penalty imposed is adequate. Therefore, the respondents are justified in imposing the punishment of ‘Stoppage of Two Annual Grade Increments with Cumulative Effect’ for the proven charges and respondent No.1 has rightly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader has contended that there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly the departmental proceedings were initiated vide charge memo No.3025/V3/2007 dated 26.11.2008 for the incident pertaining to the year 2007 and concluded by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent No.2 herein vide impugned punishment order dated 13.01.2022 i.e. after a lapse of 14 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on number of occasions, has deprecated the practice of the authorities in delaying the conclusion of departmental proceedings and held that the respondents cannot take their own time to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. Some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are referred hereunder. 6.1) In P.V. Mahadevan’s case (referred supra) , 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. Some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are referred hereunder. 6.1) In P.V. Mahadevan’s case (referred supra) , 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. 6.2) 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. 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. 6.3) Further, in 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. 7) In the instant case, admittedly, as stated supra, the respondents took 14 years time to conclude the departmental proceedings. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the inordinate delay caused in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the petitioner caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore liable to be set aside. 8) For the afore-mentioned reasons, the impugned punishment order dated 13.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the order in Appeal passed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 19.10.2024 are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer in accordance with law. 9) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.