S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in the year 1983 for certain allegations pertaining to the year 19/2-74, but the inquiry has not yet been concluded and a prayer has been made for quashing the same on the ground of inordinate delay in the inquiry. Against the suspension order, which was passed against the petitioner in the year 1983, he approached this Court by filing the writ petition and the suspension order was quashed and the petitioner has been reinstated in service. The question of belated inquiry has been the subject-matter of decisions in several cases by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of A.P. Augustine v. Superintendent of Offices, 1984 (2) SLR 163 it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that inquiry cannot be conducted for belated charge and as the inquiry was much belated the same was quashed. In the case of B.R. Singh v. Union of India, 1989 (4) SCC 710 the appointment of a driver was cancelled alter conviction. The inquiry was held after three years, but as the departmental inquiry was based on belated charges the entire inquiry was quashed. In a very latest case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, 1990 AIR SC 1308 Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated as under : "The appeal against the order dated 16-12-1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and latches and should have all owed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have been taken place between the years 3975-1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April. 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as state.d by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal." 2-3. Learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court para wise comments received by him from which it appears that the petitioner had purchased certain properties which were disproportionate to his income. He admits that the allegations pertained to bis acts alleged to have been committed in the year 1972 to 1974. Although it has been said on behalf of the State that a charge-sheet has been issued, but. there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge-sheet and this Court is of the view that it would be unfair to permit the departmental inquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. 4. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 contemplated by the opposite party no. 1 on 10-2-1983. The petitioner would be entitled for the consequential benefits including the arrears of salary for the period 18-2-1983 to 33st August, 1983. Opposite parties will also consider the confirmation and promotion of the petitioner in accordance with Rules. No order is made as to costs.;