1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the charge sheet dated 29.7.2002 and the consequential departmental inquiry initiated against him under Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

2. Challenge to the charge-sheet and the departmental inquiry initiated is made mainly on the ground that there is inordinate delay in initiation of the proceedings. It is stated that the incident for which the charge-sheet is issued, occurred in the year 1986-87. The charge-sheet is issued after a period of more than 15 years of the incident i.e… on 29.7.2002, just two days prior to the retirement of the petitioner. Accordingly, on the aforesaid grounds challenge is made to the charge sheet and initiation of the departmental inquiry.

3. Records indicate that while issuing notice at the time of admission, on 7.10.2002, respondents were restrained from passing any final order on the departmental inquiry and, therefore, no final decision has been taken. Be that as it may, the facts that have come on record goes to show that petitioner was working in the Department as an Accountant. He has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2002, as is evident from Annexure A/1. However, just two days before his retirement, the impugned charge-sheet dated 29.7.2002 has been issued to him. A perusal of the charge-sheet goes to show that the allegation levelled in the charge-sheet is to the effect that while the petitioner was posted in the office of Chief Medical Officer, in the year 1986-87 as an Accountant, he had made certain wrong entries with regard to payment for medicines. As a result it is alleged that he has committed misconduct. In charge No.(ii), it is stated that even though the mis-appropriation or misconduct is committed by the petitioner in the year 1986-87, the facts came to the notice of the department only after five years when the appropriate bills were submitted and they were audited in the year 1992-93. Accordingly, holding the petitioner prima facie guilty of the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet, a departmental inquiry was proposed to be held against him under Rule 14 and challenging the aforesaid petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that there is inordinate delay in filing of the charge-sheet and the delay is not explained, issuance of the charge-sheet just two days before retirement is unsustainable and now after a period of so many years, the charge-sheet could not be proceeded with.

4. Respondents have filed reply and it is only stated that charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner as certain irregularities were committed by the petitioner in submission of bills with regard to purchase of medicines and this has resulted in loss to the petitioner, therefore, enquiry is proposed to be held.

5. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether on the ground of delay in initiation of the departmental proceedings the charge-sheet can be quashed or not?

6. The question of quashing a charge-sheet and departmental inquiry initiated after an inordinate delay has been considered by the Supreme Court in various cases. The law in this regard has been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. MD. T.N. Housing Board, (2006) 6 SCC 636, in which issuance of a charge-sheet after a period of more than 10 years was quashed by the Supreme Court. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court that if there is inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of the charge-sheet, the entire departmental inquiry and the charge-sheet can be quashed.

7. Reliance is also placed on an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of delay in initiating departmental proceedings, in the case of State of MP v. Bani Singh, 1990 JLJ 319 = 1990 Supp SCC 738. Similarly, in the case of P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and others, 2006 (3) JLJ 176 = 2007(1) SCC (L&S) 43, similar question has been considered and it has been held that if there is