ORDER : NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. The present Writ Petition is filed for quashing the departmental proceedings initiated under Articles of Charge issued in Rc.No.1656/2016/M4, dated 21.03.2017 in respect of an incident pertains to 2014 in spite of submitting the report by the Enquiry Officer on 05.03.2019. 2. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondents. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Forest Section Officer in February 2008 at Kamareddy Division of erstwhile Nizamabad District. The petitioner worked as a Forest Section Officer for Reddypet Section, Kamareddy Range of Kamareddy Division, from October 2009 to June 2014. During the said period, as per the estimates sanctioned by the Divisional office for construction of boundary pillars, work was executed under Vana Samrakshana Samithi (VSS) as per the procedure contemplated. Works were executed as per the estimates prepared and after works were completed, work completion reports were incorporated in the Division Accounts accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamareddy. In 2014 itself the Divisional Office accepted the works. While stood thus, the Vigilance & Enquiry personnel from the Directorate Office, conducted field inspection and found certain irregularities in respect of usage of steel and concrete for laying down foundations. 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the report, it was found that in view of the said irregularities, loss of an amount of Rs.32,342/- was caused to the exchequer. Based on the report of Vigilance & Enquiry, dated 10.02.2015, Articles of Charge was issued by the 3 rd respondent nearly after 3 years i.e., on 21.03.2017 framing single charge. On 01.05.2017, the petitioner sought furnishing the report of D.G., Vigilance & Enquiry, dated 10.02.2015 and copies of M.Books. On furnishing the same, the petitioner submitted a reply on 04.07.2017, denying the charge in toto. The petitioner raised objections against the lapses pointed out by the Vigilance & Enquiry personnel. The petitioner was transferred from the said place and during the new incumbent period Vigilance & Enquiry, submitted reports without knowing the truth in the allegations. 3(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after submitting reply to the charge on 02.08.2017, the 3 rd respondent appointed Divisional Forest Officer, Kamareddy, as an Enquiry Authority for submitting findings within three months. 3(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after submitting reply to the charge on 02.08.2017, the 3 rd respondent appointed Divisional Forest Officer, Kamareddy, as an Enquiry Authority for submitting findings within three months. Subsequently, the said Enquiry Officer was changed and Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by proceedings dated 03.10.2017 and directed him to submit his findings within three months. After lapse of four months, the 3rd respondent appointed Forest Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, as Presenting Officer. This itself shows that after lapse of three months, Presenting Officer was appointed. On 10.09.2018 i.e. after lapse of seven months, the petitioner received notice to attend before the Enquiry Officer on 19.09.2018 and after receiving the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to submit his written statement and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his written statement to the Enquiry Officer on the same date by denying the charge in toto. 3(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Enquiry Officer without conducting any enquiry under Rule 20 of T.S.C.S. & C.C.A. Rules, submitted his report on 05.03.2019. After lapse of nearly six months, it was forwarded to the petitioner along with findings on 06.03.2019 and asked the petitioner to submit his defence. The Enquiry Officer without there being any evidence and discussing the evidences stated that the charge is proved. The petitioner submitted his objections on 22.03.2019 and requesting that the disciplinary proceedings be dropped since the charge is not proven based on any evidence. Even after lapse of three years, the respondents have not passed any final orders finalizing the disciplinary proceedings initiated in respect of an event of 2014 in charge memo 21.3.2017. 3(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the Seniority List prepared as on 01.01.2019 in the category of Deputy Range Officers, the petitioner stands at Sl.No.18. The petitioner was promoted as a Deputy Range Officer on 14.09.2014 and his juniors stand from Sl.No.21, 22, 23 and 27 in the said seniority list were promoted to the post of Forest Range Officers in the panel year 2019 in March 2020. Due to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer even though he is the senior most person. Due to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer even though he is the senior most person. 3(v) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charge is very simple in nature. In view of negligence or irregularities committed by three officers, Government sustained loss of Rs.32,342/-. For such a simple charge, for issuing Articles of Charge, the Department has taken nearly three years. In spite of fixing time for finalization of departmental proceedings within three months, even after submitting the report by the Enquiry Officer, more than three years time has been lapsed and the respondents not finalised the departmental proceedings. As per the Government Circular issued in Circular Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98-1 G.A.(Ser.C) Department dated 01.07.1998 and Memo No.24637 /Serv.C/2000-2 G.A.(Ser.C) Department, dated 05.09.2000, three months time granted in respect of simple cases and six months time in respect of complicated cases for finalizing the disciplinary cases. 3(vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inordinate delay in finalization of departmental proceedings, is the ground to quash the departmental proceedings. Even otherwise, the department has not produced any evidence to prove the petitioner’s guilty. Moreover, the report of Enquiry Officer establishes that there is no evidence at all produced by the Presenting Officer to prove the charge. The contents of the report were not proved by any independent evidence. It is the case of no evidence. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The report prepared by the Enquiry Officer is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rule 20 & 21 T.S.C.S. & C.C.A. Rules 3(vii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government kept the matter pending for the last 3 years in spite of receiving the report of the Enquiry Officer. As such, the petitioner approached this Court for appropriate relief. 4. As such, the petitioner approached this Court for appropriate relief. 4. Along with the Writ Petition, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1 of 2022 is filed to issue an interim direction directing the respondents to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer without reference to the Articles of Charges issued in Rc.No.1656/2016/M4, dated 21.03.2017 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed to issue an interim direction staying all further proceedings in pursuance of the Articles of Charges issued in Rc.No.1656/2016/M4, dated 21.03.2017. At the time of arguments, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that directions be issued to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court opined that there has been an inordinate delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings, which cannot be countenanced. The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, this Court directed that there shall be interim direction as prayed for in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022. 5. Later, the respondents filed vacate stay petition vide I.A. No.3 of 2022 along with counter by contending that the Officials of Vigilance and Enforcement Department had inspected the works executed by the Forest Officials for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and among other works, the Vigilance & Enforcement Officials noticed certain irregularities in the works executed by the Petitioner. On credible information that the Forest Officials of Medak & Nizamabad Districts committed irregularities in executing the work, the officials of Vigilance and Enforcement Department along with the officials of Forest Department, have verified the works carried out under different schemes. Accordingly, the inspection party has verified the work of construction of 20 RCC boundary pillars at Gidda Beat of Reddypet Section of Kamareddy Range and Division which was carried out by the petitioner under 13th Finance Forest Protection scheme during 2012-13 season. 5(i) It is the further contention of the respondents that the inspection party noticed at page No.3 of measurement book No.293/12 the work of RCC (1:2:4) 20 cm. thick up to ground level worth Rs.27,513/- is charged for construction of (20) pillars. But it is observed by the Vigilance & Enforcement and Forest officials during inspection that RCC work is not done for construction of (20) pillars. thick up to ground level worth Rs.27,513/- is charged for construction of (20) pillars. But it is observed by the Vigilance & Enforcement and Forest officials during inspection that RCC work is not done for construction of (20) pillars. Thus, the Vigilance and Enforcement officials assessed the total loss caused to the Government to Rs.32,342/-, for which, the petitioner is held responsible. The Inquiry Officer without conducting any inquiry has submitted findings is not correct and the fact is that, the Inquiry Officer has conducted the Oral Inquiry on 19.09.2018 and statement of the petitioner had been recorded as per the procedure laid down in Rule-20 of Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. After following the procedure laid down in the said rules, the Inquiry Officer submitted his findings in the disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner holding the Charges as "Proved" and submitted to the Respondent No.3 in Rc.No.3067/2017/D4, dated 05.03.2019. 5(ii) It is the further contention of the respondents that the candidature of the petitioner falls under Para 6 of Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Services.C) Department dated 10.06.1999. Para 6 of the said G.O. reads as follows: “The appointing authority should consider and decide that it would not be against public interest to allow adhoc promotion to the officer concerned and this shall be decided with reference to the charge under enquiry. If the charge is one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then the appointing authority should consider as not in the public interest to consider adhoc promotion to such charged officer. But, however, if the charge is not a grave one but is a minor one, not involving moral turpitude, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then only in such cases the appointing authority should consider that it would not be against public interest to allow adhoc promotion because till then his record is clean with reference to ACRs, past punishment and reputation in the department as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and Secretary to Government. The appointing authorities should strive to finalise the disciplinary cases pursing them vigorously so that within two years the proceedings are concluded and final orders issued.” 5(iii) It is the further contention of the respondents that the Charge Memo dated 21.03.2017 issued to the petitioner is of grave dereliction of duty and misappropriation of Government funds by way of constructing boundary pillars without any foundation and with insufficient steel enforcement thereby causing loss of Rs.32,342/- to Government exchequer. Further, the candidature of the petitioner falls under Para 6 of Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Services.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 as the charges framed against him are held proved and proposals for finalization of disciplinary case had been submitted to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Telangana State, Hyderabad, who in turn submitted the Proposals to the Special Secretary to Government, EFS&T, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad for finalization of disciplinary case of the Petitioner. The orders from the Government are awaited. In view of the said circumstances, prayed to vacate the Interim Orders issued in I.A. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2022 in WP No. 18163 of 2022 on 18.04.2022. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the present case there is inordinate delay from the inception of alleged irregularities and such unexplained delay in conclusion of the proceedings, vitiates the proceedings and it would cause prejudice to the petitioner and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan , [ (1998)4 SCC 154 ] observed as follows: “18. In State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, State of Punjab was aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashing memo of charges against Goyal and also the order appointing Enquiry Officer to inquire into those charges. In this case the incident, which was the subject-matter of charge, happened in December 1986 and in early January 1987, when Goyal was working as Superintendent of Nabha High Security Jail. It was only on 9.7.1992 that memo of charges was issued to Goyal. He submitted his explanation on 4.1.1993 denying the charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed on 20.7.1993 and soon thereafter Goyal filed writ petition in the High Court on 24.8.1993. It was only on 9.7.1992 that memo of charges was issued to Goyal. He submitted his explanation on 4.1.1993 denying the charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed on 20.7.1993 and soon thereafter Goyal filed writ petition in the High Court on 24.8.1993. The High Court quashed the memo of charges on the principal ground of delay of five and a half years in serving the memo of charges, for which there was no acceptable explanation. This Court examined the factual position as to how the delay occurred and if Goyal had been prejudiced in any way on account of delay. This Court relied on the principles laid down in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and said that though that case pertained to criminal prosecution the principles enunciated therein were broadly applicable to the plea of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well. In the case on hand, irregularities allegedly taken place on 10.02.2015 and after lapse of three years i.e. on 21.03.2017, the 3 rd respondent framed a single charge. On 01.05.2017, the petitioner sought furnishing the report of D.G., Vigilance & Enquiry, dated 10.02.2015, and the petitioner submitted his reply on 04.07.2017 denying the charge in toto. After lapse of seven months from the date of charge, notice was issued to the petitioner to attend before the Enquiry Officer on 19.09.2018 and the Enquiry Officer without conducting any enquiry under Rule 20 of T.S.C.S. & C.C.A. Rules, submitted his report on 05.03.2019 after lapse of six months. As such, the facts in the above cited case are squarely applicable to the case on hand. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings after three years and continuance thereof causes prejudice to the petitioner and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others; , [ (2006)5 SCC 88 ] wherein it was held as under: “19. It is really a matter of great surprise that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated five years after the appellant handed over charge. At that time he was admittedly not having possession of any documents. The Enquiry Officer furthermore took a period of seven years to complete the enquiry. The Appellate Authority also took seven years in disposing of the appeal. It is really a matter of great surprise that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated five years after the appellant handed over charge. At that time he was admittedly not having possession of any documents. The Enquiry Officer furthermore took a period of seven years to complete the enquiry. The Appellate Authority also took seven years in disposing of the appeal. Even then, the Appellate Authority did not go into the question as to whether the procedures laid down for holding the disciplinary proceedings had been followed or not. He did not go into the contentions of the appellant herein minutely. The memo of appeal filed by the appellant was very elaborate. He raised a number of contentions therein. The enquiry officer was charged with bias. He was also charged with unfair conduct. He was said to have committed a large number of irregularities in the departmental proceeding. The memo of appeal of the appellant was in about 65 typed pages. It was subdivided into five parts. He made all endeavours to deal with each and every finding of the enquiry officer and dealt with almost all the documents relied upon by the department. He also dealt with the deposition of the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties.” In the present case also, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated three years after the petitioner handed over charge. The petitioner raised objections against the lapses pointed out by the Vigilance & Enquiry personnel. The petitioner was transferred from the said place and during the new incumbent period Vigilance & Enquiry, submitted reports without knowing the truth in the allegations. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents argued that the disciplinary enquiry can proceed to its logical conclusion and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Akhilesh Jha and another; , [ (2021) 12 SCC 460 ] wherein it was held as under; “16. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 5-9-2019. The charge-sheet was issued to the first respondent while he was in service, and hence the disciplinary enquiry can proceed to its logical conclusion. The disciplinary enquiry should be concluded expeditiously, preferably by 31-7-2022. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 5-9-2019. The charge-sheet was issued to the first respondent while he was in service, and hence the disciplinary enquiry can proceed to its logical conclusion. The disciplinary enquiry should be concluded expeditiously, preferably by 31-7-2022. In the event that the first respondent is entitled to the release of any part of his retiral dues, including gratuity, in consonance with law, necessary steps for that purpose shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of this order.” 9. In the case on hand, the issue was raised in the 2014 and even after lapse of three years, disciplinary proceedings were not completed. As per Rule 5 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, in simple cases, the enquiry initiated shall be completed within three months and in case of complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the enquiry should be completed within five to six months. Knowingly about the said rule, the Departmental Officers have delayed the disciplinary proceedings in the present case and for which, the petitioner cannot be punished by withholding his promotion etc., Even the CCA rules mandate the completion of departmental proceedings in simple cases, the enquiry initiated shall be completed within three months and in case of complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the enquiry should be completed within five to six months. As such, the above judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to set aside the departmental proceedings initiated under Articles of Charge issued in Rc.No.1656/2016/M4, dated 21.03.2017 in respect of an incident pertains to 2014 and accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer on par with his juniors from March 2020 with all consequential attendant benefits. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.