24.2.2009 Present: Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A. G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. for the respondents. CWP(T) No.3411/2008 (OA No.1073/96) The petitioner was employed on work charged post with the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the year 1978, the petitioner applied for grant of Nautor land. In the application, the petitioner did not disclose this fact, apparently for the reasons that he was not regularly employed with the State. Vide order dated 14.7.1998, the State accorded grant of 5-01 bighas of land comprising Khasra Nos.563/2 and 502/2 situate in village Dawanri-may Kathanri, Tehsil Kotkhai. The State initiated the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for having disclosed false particulars while moving the application for grant of Nautor land. The petitioner, however, was discharged by the Court when it was found that the petitioner had not committed any offence. The grant was also cancelled vide order dated 30.1.1981. However, the matter did not rest there and after a period of 18 years the State initiated disciplinary proceedings and charge-sheeted the petitioner on 10.7.1996 on the ground that he had furnished false information with regard to his livelihood. The petitioner has since retired. The proceedings could not be concluded in view of the interim order dated 30th August, 1996 passed in the present proceedings (O.A. No.1073/1996). Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, has invited my attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh (AIR 1990 SC 1308), wherein the Apex Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee after a period of 12 years. Importantly, the petitioner was discharged from the criminal case No.45/2 of 1982 on 2.11.1982. Admittedly, the said order has attained finality. In the present case, the disciplinary action was initiated only on 10.7.1996 and that too after a period of 18 years. The State has not assigned any reasons justifying the delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), I am of the considered view that in the absence of any satisfactorily explanation for initiating the disciplinary proceedings after such lapse of time, it would be unfair to continue with the inquiry proceedings at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the memorandum of charge dated 10.7.1996 is quashed and the respondents are restrained from taking any further disciplinary action. The petition is disposed of as such. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. February 24, 2009 (rana)