ORDER : S.G.PANDIT, J. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 25.09.2024 in Application No.3279/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”), rejecting petitioner’s prayer to quash the charge memo dated 20.02.2021. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner is a retired Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department. He retired on 31.05.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to his retirement, charge memo dated 20.02.2021 was served upon him on 06.07.2024. Further, the petitioner would state that the charge memo dated 20.02.2021 (Annexure-A1) relates to the period between 03.07.2000 to 24.04.2003. Hence, the petitioner contends that the charge memo is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is barred by Rule 214 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short “KCSRs”) and also that the department could not have initiated enquiry belatedly i.e., after 18 years. 3. On the above stated ground, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.3279/2024 and the Tribunal under impugned order rejected the prayer of the petitioner holding that Rule 214 of KCSRs would not assist the petitioner and also holding that it is not a case for quashing the Articles of Charge. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ranganath Jois for petitioner through video conference and learned AGA Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Ranganath Jois would contend that the charge memo dated 20.02.2021 was served upon the petitioner only on 06.07.2024 much subsequent to petitioner’s retirement on 31.05.2021. Learned counsel placing reliance on Rule 214 of KCSRs would contend that since the incident on which the charge memo issued relates to the years 2000 to 2003, the charge memo is barred by Rule 214 of KCSRs, since no enquiry could be initiated against a retired Government servant in respect of an incident that had taken place more than 4 years prior to his retirement. 6. Nextly, learned counsel Sri.Ranganath Jois contends that initiation of enquiry in respect of an incident which alleged to have taken place between the years 2000 to 2003 is impermissible. 6. Nextly, learned counsel Sri.Ranganath Jois contends that initiation of enquiry in respect of an incident which alleged to have taken place between the years 2000 to 2003 is impermissible. As there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating enquiry, the charge memo requires to be quashed. Learned counsel would submit that there is no explanation for delay of more than 18 years in initiating enquiry either in the charge memo or in the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal. It is contended that delay in initiating enquiry has prejudiced the defense of the petitioner. As the delay is not explained, the petitioner would be entitled for the relief as prayed. 7. Per contra, learned AGA Sri.Rojipura would submit that the contention that the charge memo is barred by Rule 214 of KCSRs is untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the charge memo is dated 20.02.2021 and the charge memo was despatched for service on the petitioner while he was in service. He submits that the date of issuance of charge memo would be relevant and not the date of service. Thus, learned AGA would pray for rejection of the said contention. Further, learned AGA would submit that no charge memo could be quashed as the charge memo itself would not give cause of action to come before this Court. The petitioner would not become an aggrieved person only on issuance of charge memo unless consequential order is passed imposing any punishment. Further, he submits that the petitioner would get an opportunity in the enquiry to defend his case, as such he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the following points would arise for consideration: (a) Whether the charge memo dated 20.02.2021 is barred by Rule 214 of KCSRs? (b) Whether the charge memo dated 20.02.2021 suffers from inordinate delay and latches? (c) Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference? 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021. Prior to his retirement, charge memo dated 20.02.2021 (Annexure-A1) was issued to the petitioner, but the same was alleged to be served on the petitioner only on 06.07.2024, subsequent to his retirement. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021. Prior to his retirement, charge memo dated 20.02.2021 (Annexure-A1) was issued to the petitioner, but the same was alleged to be served on the petitioner only on 06.07.2024, subsequent to his retirement. The relevant date for determining whether the charge memo is barred by Rule 214 of KCSRs is the date of issuance and not the date of service of charge memo. The Tribunal, in the impugned order has observed that Articles of Charge was issued on 20.02.2021 and it was sent through Registered Post to the address furnished by the applicant to his residence and the same was returned back with postal endorsement “ incomplete address ”, though it was addressed to the address furnished by the petitioner. If the charge memo dated 20.02.2021 was sent through registered post while th e petitioner was in service, it would mean that charge memo/charge sheet was issued to the petitioner while in service itself. Rule 214 of KCSRs would not permit initiation of enquiry against a retired person for an incident which had taken place more than 4 years prior to the date of issuance of charge memo. Rule- 214 of KCSRs would not come to the aid of petitioner since charge memo is issued while the petitioner was in service. 10. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.NO.12920/2022 (SRI.ANIL GANAPATI SANKOLLI VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) , placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1993) 3 SCC 196 in DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. H.C. KHURANA, wherein the word ‘issue’ is interpreted held that date of despatch would be the relevant date has held as follows: “The Hon’ble Apex Court in H.C. KHURANA case cite supra was considering and interpreted the word ‘issue’ in the matter of issuance of charge memo in a departmental proceedings. The relevant portion as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 reads as follows :- “13. It will be seen that in Jankiraman also, emphasis is on the stage when ‘a decision has been taken to initiate the disciplinary proceedings' and it was further said that 'to deny the said benefit (of promotion), they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee'. It will be seen that in Jankiraman also, emphasis is on the stage when ‘a decision has been taken to initiate the disciplinary proceedings' and it was further said that 'to deny the said benefit (of promotion), they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee'. The word 'issued' used in this context in Jankiraman it is urged by learned counsel for the respondent, means service on the employee. We are unable to read Jankiraman in this manner. The context in which the word 'issued' has been used, merely means that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings is taken and translated into action by despatch of the charge-sheet leaving no doubt that the decision had been taken. The contrary view would defeat the object by enabling the government servant, if so inclined, to evade service and thereby frustrate the decision and get promotion in spite of that decision. Obviously, the contrary view cannot be taken. 14. 'Issue' of the charge-sheet in the context of a decision taken to initiate the disciplinary proceedings must mean, as it does, the framing of the charge- sheet and taking of the necessary action to despatch the charge-sheet to the employee to inform him of the charges framed against him requiring his explanation; and not also the further fact of service of the charge-sheet on the employee. It is so, because knowledge to the employee of the charges framed against him, on the basis of the decision taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings, does not form a part of the decision making process of the authorities to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, even if framing the charges forms a part of that process in certain situations. The conclusions of the Tribunal quoted at the end of para 16 of the decision in Jankiraman which have been accepted thereafter in para 17 in the manner indicated above, do use the word 'served' in conclusion No.(4), but the fact of 'issue' of the charge-sheet to the employee is emphasised in para 17 of the decision. Conclusion No.(4) of the Tribunal has to be deemed to be accepted in Jankiraman only in this manner. 15. The meaning of the word 'issued', on which considerable stress was laid by learned counsel for the respondent, has to be gathered from the context in which it is used. Conclusion No.(4) of the Tribunal has to be deemed to be accepted in Jankiraman only in this manner. 15. The meaning of the word 'issued', on which considerable stress was laid by learned counsel for the respondent, has to be gathered from the context in which it is used. Meanings of the 'word issue' given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary include 'to give exit to; to send forth, or allow to pass out; to let out; .... to give or send out authoritatively or officially; to send forth or deal out formally or publicly-, to emit, put into circulation'. The issue of a charge-sheet, therefore, means its despatch to the government servant, and this act is complete the moment steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the charge-sheet and despatching it to the government servant, the further fact of its actual service on the government servant not being a necessary part of its requirement. This is the sense in which the word 'issue' was used in the expression 'charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee', in para 17 of the decision in Jankiraman.” The above decision makes it abundantly clear that when a charge memo/charge sheet is issued, the date of issue would be the date of despatch of such charge memo/charge sheet. The issuance of charge memo would be complete, the moment steps are taken for the purpose of despatch, despatching it to the Government Servant.” In view of the above, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the charge memo dated 20.02.2021 is barred by Rule 214 of KCSRs. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the charge memo/charge sheet suffers from inordinate delay. A perusal of the charge memo dated 20.02.2021 (Annexure-A1) indicates that the charge memo is issued in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place between 03.07.2000 to 24.04.2003 when the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Chikkamagaluru. The charge memo itself indicates that the Audit Team from Accountant General Office had pointed out the lapses in its Inspection Report for the period between 2005-2008 in respect of the irregularities in awarding work contract. But the enquiry is initiated only in the year 2021 by issuing show-cause notice/charge memo dated 20.02.2021. The charge memo itself indicates that the Audit Team from Accountant General Office had pointed out the lapses in its Inspection Report for the period between 2005-2008 in respect of the irregularities in awarding work contract. But the enquiry is initiated only in the year 2021 by issuing show-cause notice/charge memo dated 20.02.2021. There is 18 years delay in initiating enquiry from the date of the incident and more than 13 years delay from the date of audit report. 12. The delay prejudices the petitioner. There is no explanation for delay in initiating the enquiry either in the charge memo or in the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal. The delay in initiating the enquiry definitely affects the defense of the petitioner or the petitioner would not be in a position to defend his case by placing on record the cogent materials. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that 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 enquiry is unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the delay in initiating enquiry vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. The delay always prejudices the case of either side. Further, interfering with the charge memo/charge sheet at the initial stage depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, in the instant case, there is no explanation for the delay in initiating enquiry. Moreover, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 693 in the case of AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA v/s STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS was considering the question as to whether inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of charge sheet (14 years) would in itself be a ground for quashing the charge sheet issued. The Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 17 and 18 has held as under: “17. As to the second question, regarding whether delay is a ground for stopping the departmental proceedings at the stage of the chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this varies from case to case. The Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 17 and 18 has held as under: “17. As to the second question, regarding whether delay is a ground for stopping the departmental proceedings at the stage of the chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this varies from case to case. However, in the instant case where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department, but still no departmental proceedings are initiated, the answer must go in favour of the employee. However, there may be cases where the department was not even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is indicative, based on material considerations of factors other than merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications. In such cases, such a delay, by itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of the process of departmental proceedings. 18. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh V. Bani Singh, wherein the court noted that there was no reason to interfere with the quashing as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 12 years of delay. A reference should also be made to the decision of this Court in P.V.Mahadevan v. MD, T.N.Housing Board, where it has been reiterated that continuing the departmental proceedings after an undue delay would be unjust, causing unnecessary mental distress and damaging the reputation of the employee for the mistakes committed by the department in initiating departmental proceedings.” 15. The Tribunal under the impugned order failed to consider the prejudice that would be caused to the petitioner that too when he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in enquiring the subject matter relating to the years 2000 to 2003. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the petitioner has succeeded on the second ground of delay in initiating the enquiry canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly point No.2 and 3 are answered in affirmative, in favour of petitioner. Hence, the following order: The writ petition is allowed . The order dated 25.09.2024 in Application No.3279/2024 passed by the Tribunal is quashed. Application No.3279/2024 is allowed and consequently, charge memo bearing No. dated 20.02.2021 (Annexure-A1) issued by the State Government is quashed.