ORDER: PULLA KARTHIK, J. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following reliefs: (a) declare proceedings dated 26.10.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent through which denovo enquiry is initiated as bad, illegal, belated, without jurisdiction, biased, without reasons, contrary to CCA rules, 1991, amounting to non-application of mind, draconic, unconstitutional (b) to declare proceedings dated 27.07.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent through which major punishment of stoppage of 1 increment with cumulative effect was imposed as bad illegal irrational unfair amounting to non-application of mind, amounting to relying upon 2nd enquiry officers report which is totally unsustainable, amounts to non-application of mind, non-speaking, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional (c) to hold that the petitioner is entitled for his retrospective promotion as deputy range officer on par with his juniors and further promotion as Forest range officer on par with his juniors without reference to unnecessary disciplinary proceedings/ ACB proceedings initiated against him with all consequential benefits (d) by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and pass… 2. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent Department as Forest Section Officer in the year 1993, and subsequently, promoted as Deputy Range Officer in the year 2014. However, solely on the ground that an Anti-Corruption Bureau case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2003, despite his eligibility, the respondents have denied his promotion in the year 2004, and promoted one Mr. Y. Gangadhar, who is (6) years junior to the petitioner, to the cadre of Deputy Range Officer. Thereafter, the said individual was also promoted as Range officer vide proceedings dated 26.01.2009. However, since the ACB case was pending against the petitioner, he was deprived of his promotions to the cadres of Deputy Range Officer and Range Officer in 2004 and 2009 respectively. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the said ACB case vide judgment dated 30.11.2018, and therefore, he is fully entitled for promotion on par with Mr. Y. Gangadhar. 4. However, since the ACB case was pending against the petitioner, he was deprived of his promotions to the cadres of Deputy Range Officer and Range Officer in 2004 and 2009 respectively. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the said ACB case vide judgment dated 30.11.2018, and therefore, he is fully entitled for promotion on par with Mr. Y. Gangadhar. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner was earlier placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 06.02.2012 by respondent No.4, and a charge memo dated 02.03.2012 was issued to him, for which, he submitted his detailed explanation on 11.02.2014, denying the charges. However, an enquiry officer was appointed, and based on his enquiry report, disciplinary proceedings, initiated in pursuance of the aforesaid charge memo dated 02.03.2012, were dropped vide proceedings dated 03.08.2018. As such, the petitioner submitted his representations to the respondents on 07.11.2019, 05.01.2021, 18.01.2021 and 22.05.2021, seeking retrospective promotions. However, his request was rejected vide proceedings dated 12.09.2022, based on invalid and misdirected ground that he was inflicted with punishments. It is submitted that apart from the ACB case, the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceedings, which concluded with the imposition of minor punishments of ‘withholding of one increment without cumulative effect with some recovery’ in the year 2018, and ‘censure’ in the year 2023. However, the respondents have taken these subsequent punishments into account and denied denying retrospective promotion of the petitioner, on par with his junior, Mr. Y. Gangadhar, which is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 5. It is further submitted that respondent No.3, vide proceedings dated 26.10.2023, sought to re-open the earlier disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2012 and dropped in 2018, and on the same day, an enquiry officer and a presenting officer were appointed vide separate proceedings, to conduct a de novo enquiry, which is ex facie illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the Telangana Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’). It is submitted that as per Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rules, only a higher authority is authorized to exercise his powers to re-open a case, already concluded by a lower authority. However, in the present case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by respondent No.4 in 2012 and exonerated the petitioner in 2018, and thus, respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to re-open the said proceedings. However, in the present case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by respondent No.4 in 2012 and exonerated the petitioner in 2018, and thus, respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to re-open the said proceedings. Even though respondent No.3 were to be authorized to take any such action, he shall follow the Rules and issue a fresh charge memo, which has not been done in the present case. As such, the whole proceedings are vitiated. It is further submitted that the reliance placed upon Rule 40 of the CCA Rules by respondent No.3 is also misconceived, as it deals with the authority of the Government, which cannot be invoked by respondent No.3 herein. Further, even under Rule 40 of the CCA Rules, a notice has to be issued to the concerned employee before taking any action against him. 6. It is submitted that the second enquiry officer conducted a sham enquiry in blatant violation of Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, without examining the witnesses, and only recorded a statement from the petitioner, and unilaterally, held the charges against the petitioner as proved vide enquiry report dated 03.06.2024. In response, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation/written statement dated 07.06.2024. However, without considering the same, respondent No.3 imposed a major punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 27.07.2024, which is illegal, arbitrary, biased, unfair, without application of mind, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the CCA Rules. It is further submitted that the allegations pertain to the year 2012 and the charge memo was issued in 2012. Subsequently, after almost six years, the said proceedings were dropped in 2018. However, without assigning any reasons, in utter disregard of the findings of the first enquiry officer, respondent No.3 chose to re-open the proceedings after a lapse of almost five years and decided to conduct a deno enquiry, which is after almost eleven years of the alleged incident, without any jurisdiction. As such, the said belated proceedings, amounting double jeopardy upon the petitioner, are impermissible and unsustainable. 7. As such, the said belated proceedings, amounting double jeopardy upon the petitioner, are impermissible and unsustainable. 7. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned de novo enquiry proceedings dated 26.10.2023 issued by respondent No.3 and the consequent impugned punishment order dated 27.07.2024, with a consequential direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Range Officer and Forest Range Officer, retrospectively, on par with his juniors, without reference to the ACB case and the disciplinary proceedings. 8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner had earlier approached the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A.No.3837 of 2014, wherein, the Tribunal passed orders dated 15.10.2014, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer, without reference to the Charge Memos dated 24.09.2005 and 30.09.2011, and also the ACB case, subject to his seniority and eligibility. However, apart from the said Charge Memos, the petitioner was also issued with a Charge Memo dated 02.03.2012, and therefore, in compliance with the orders of the Tribunal, the petitioner was considered and promoted as Deputy Range Officer during the panel year 2013-14 vide proceedings dated 18.11.2014, subject to certain conditions, including the outcome of disciplinary cases. It is submitted that in pursuance of the Charge Memo dated 24.09.2005, an enquiry was conducted and concluded, holding the charged leveled against the petitioner as proved, and the findings were furnished to the Government vide proceedings dated 13.10.2015. However, since the ACB case is pending, further orders in the said disciplinary case are awaited from the Government. It is submitted that the Charge Memo dated 30.09.2011 culminated with the imposition of a major penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, besides recovery of Rs.2,77,395/-. 9. It is further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings, in pursuance of the third Charge Memo dated 02.03.2012, were finalized by the Forest Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, vide proceedings dated 03.05.2018, duly dropping the charges framed against the petitioner. However, since the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Range Officer, the competent authority to finalize the disciplinary proceedings is the Chief Conservator of Forests, but the Forest Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, had finalized the disciplinary case duly colluding with the petitioner. As such, disciplinary action was also initiated against the said individual vide Charge memo dated 24.04.2020. However, since the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Range Officer, the competent authority to finalize the disciplinary proceedings is the Chief Conservator of Forests, but the Forest Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, had finalized the disciplinary case duly colluding with the petitioner. As such, disciplinary action was also initiated against the said individual vide Charge memo dated 24.04.2020. Subsequently, when the disciplinary files were transmitted from erstwhile Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad, to Basara Circle, Nirmal, respondent No.3 has pointed out certain irregularities, and vide proceedings dated 26.10.2023, ordered to re-open the disciplinary case against the petitioner, as per Rule 18(2) and sub-Rules (i), (iv) and (c) of Rule 40 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, duly ordering a de-novo enquiry based on the documentary evidences and appointed the Forest Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, and Forest Range Officer, Nizamabad (S), as the enquiry officer and presenting officer, respectively, vide proceedings dated 26.10.2023. As such, there is no violation in reopening the petitioner’s disciplinary case, since the matter was finalized in an illegal manner, by an incompetent authority, and only to secure the promotion, the petitioner had colluded with the Forest Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, and got his disciplinary case closed illegally. 10. It is further submitted that after a de-novo enquiry was conducted, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved, which was also communicated to the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted his written statement, denying the charges and requesting to drop further action. However, after careful consideration of the entire records, the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 27.07.2024. As such, the petitioner is liable to be reverted to his earlier post of Forest Section Officer, as per the conditions of his promotion, but the same was not implemented by the then Chief Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad, and he is continued as Deputy Range Officer. 11. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed an application dated 15.02.2019, requesting to consider his case for retrospective promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer from the panel year 2006-07, and also subsequent promotion as Forest Range Officer, w.e.f., 05.03.2014, i.e., from the date of his juniors’ promotion. 11. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed an application dated 15.02.2019, requesting to consider his case for retrospective promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer from the panel year 2006-07, and also subsequent promotion as Forest Range Officer, w.e.f., 05.03.2014, i.e., from the date of his juniors’ promotion. However, since the petitioner was earlier imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, besides effecting recovery of Rs.2,77,395/-, which squarely falls within the scope of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Further, the petitioner is also ineligible for retrospective promotion as per G.O.Ms.No.331 dated 03.05.2013, wherein, the Government issued orders stating that the promotions shall be considered only with prospective effect during subsequent panel years, duly placing the matter before the DPC/Screening Committee. As such, since the petitioner is acquitted in the ACB case, by giving the benefit of doubt, he is not entitled for retrospective promotion. Hence, there are no merits in the case of the petitioner, and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 12. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 13. Admittedly, while the petitioner was working as a Forest Section Officer, a Charge Memo vide Rc.No.584/2012/N5 (i) dated 02.03.2012 was issued against him by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.03.2012, denying the charges. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry officer, on consideration of the material and evidence on record, held the charges as not proved. Basing on the same, respondent No.4 had dropped the disciplinary proceedings vide Pro.No.581/2012/N5 (i) dated 03.08.2018. Subsequently, after almost five years, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Basara Circle, Nirmal District, i.e., respondent No.3 herein, re-opened the matter vide proceedings dated 26.10.2023, by invoking Rules 18 (2) and Sub Rules (i)(iv) and (c) of Rule 40 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and ordered for a de novo enquiry against the petitioner by appointing the enquiry and presenting officers. Thereafter, the second enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 10.05.2024, holding the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved, which was communicated to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 03.06.2024, calling for his explanation/written statement of defense. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.06.2024. Thereafter, the second enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 10.05.2024, holding the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved, which was communicated to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 03.06.2024, calling for his explanation/written statement of defense. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.06.2024. However, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings dated 27.07.2024, imposing upon the petitioner a major punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. 14. It is apposite to note that the Charge Memo was issued against the petitioner, while serving as a Forest Section Officer, on 02.03.2012, and the said disciplinary case was conclusively closed on 03.08.2018, and no appeal or revision was preferred by the petitioner, resulting in its finality. However, after a lapse of five years, the disciplinary case was suo motu re-opened by respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 26.10.2023. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to Rule 40 of the CCA Rules, and the relevant portion of the said Rule reads as under: “Rule 40. Revision :--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules--- (iv) any other authority specified in this behalf by the Government by a general or special order and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order, may where a revision petition is preferred by the Government servant within one year of the date of receipt by him of the order sought to be revised, and in cases where no such revision petition is preferred within four years of the date of the order proposed to be revised, either suo motu or otherwise and after calling for the records of any inquiry and examination, revise any order of penalty made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 45, after consultation with Commission where such consultation is necessary. The said authority may exercise the power suo motu within four years from the date of issue of order of penalty by the competent authority or within one year of the date of receipt of the petition either confirm or reduce or set aside the order of penalty or any other order already issued, and where it is proposed to enhance the penalty, such authority may exercise the power within four years from the date of receipt of the petition and revise any order made under Rule 45 after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary, and (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed, or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit:” 15. From the above, it is quite clear that the authority concerned may exercise its suo motu powers, within four years from the date of imposition of a punishment by the disciplinary authority or within one year of the date of filing of a revision petition by the Government servant, either to confirm, reduce or set aside the punishment imposed against him. However, in the instant case, although respondent No.3 lacks jurisdiction, the disciplinary proceedings were suo motu re-opened by him vide proceedings dated 26.10.2023, outside the prescribed time frame, i.e., after five years of dropping the charges vide proceedings dated 03.08.2018, thereby, vitiating the entire exercise. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of respondent No.3 in re-opening the disciplinary proceedings is ex facie barred by Rule 40 of the CCA Rules. Although the respondents tried to justify their action by citing procedural infirmities and collusion, the same cannot be countenanced, as the said action in itself is in gross violation of the CCA Rules. 16. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Charge Memo was issued against the petitioner on 02.03.2012, and the disciplinary proceedings, revived in the year 2018, were continued until 2024, culminating with the imposition of the impugned punishment vide order dated 27.07.2024. 17. 16. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Charge Memo was issued against the petitioner on 02.03.2012, and the disciplinary proceedings, revived in the year 2018, were continued until 2024, culminating with the imposition of the impugned punishment vide order dated 27.07.2024. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as this Court, has time and again held that inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings would be prejudicial and impermissible, leading to 1 4 quashing of the said proceedings. In P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board , (2005) 6 SCC 636 the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that it would be prejudicial to an employee, if the authorities proceed with departmental proceedings at the distance of time. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion 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 officer 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.” 18. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Charge Memo pertains to the year 2012 and more than a decade has passed since then. Hence, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V. Mahadevan (supra), on the ground of delay too, this Court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 26.10.2023 and 27.07.2024 are liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned orders vide Rc.No.584/2012/N5/M1(i) dated 26.10.2023 and Proc.No.584/2012/N5 dated 27.07.2024, both issued by respondent No.3. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 26.10.2023 and 27.07.2024 are liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned orders vide Rc.No.584/2012/N5/M1(i) dated 26.10.2023 and Proc.No.584/2012/N5 dated 27.07.2024, both issued by respondent No.3. As regards the petitioner’s entitlement for retrospective promotion, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the same, and the petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to the respondents, claiming retrospective promotion, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks therefrom, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.