ORDER : Sachin Singh Rajput, J. This petition has been filed against the show cause notice dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1 by which five and seven charges pertaining to the incident of some theft and financial transactions in Charoda and Kohka Branch of Bhilai respectively, District Durg were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to submit the explanation to the charges so made, within a period of seven days therefrom, or a presumption of nothing to be said by him would follow, and the bank would proceed with the matter. 2. Facts in brevity: At the relevant time the petitioner was an employee of UCO Bank, Kohka Branch, Bhilai posted as ALPMO. A charge was made against the petitioner that in between 6 PM of 02.11.2002 and 10 AM of 05.11.2002 (between sunset and sunrise) he had committed lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint and also committed theft of Rs. 13,99,190/- in a building used for human dwelling or for custody of the property. Thus an offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was registered against the petitioner. Investigation led to filing of charge sheet against him and then the trial ensued, where after examination of the witnesses the petitioner stood acquitted of the charges so made vide judgment dated 30.01.2017 rendered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai – 3 District Durg in Criminal Case No. 3104/2011. This acquittal remained undisturbed in appeal as well, as the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 67/2017 vide judgment dated 31.03.2018. The judgment passed by the appellate Court was further challenged by the UCO Bank as also by the State of Chhattisgarh in Revision but here also it was not interfered with as the Revisional Court i.e. the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Nos. 733/2018 and 886/2018 vide judgment dated 28.01.2025. In other words, the petitioner received clean chit right from the beginning up to the revision stage. 3. In the meantime, on charge being framed against the petitioner, the respondents placed him under suspension on 29.11.2002. Till filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner remained under suspension but the respondents did not bother to initiate any departmental proceedings nor did they revoke the suspension. 3. In the meantime, on charge being framed against the petitioner, the respondents placed him under suspension on 29.11.2002. Till filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner remained under suspension but the respondents did not bother to initiate any departmental proceedings nor did they revoke the suspension. Suspension order was challenged by the petitioner in WPS No. 2378/2023 where by order dated 18.04.2023 this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order within a period of 15 days. Accordingly, the suspension of the petitioner came to be revoked by order dated 02.05.2023 asking the petitioner to report on duty. After filing of the petition, this Court vide its order dated 21.07.2022 granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against him. While granting interim relief, this Court has made an observation that the delay in issuing the show cause notice after a lapse of about 20 years was without any justification. In this factual backdrop, the petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the show cause notice (Annexure P-1). It is worthwhile to note here that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2023. 4. The main thrust of the petitioner is that the show cause notice under challenge in this petition pertains to the incident occurring in the year 2002 whereas it was issued on 23.05.2022 – after about 20 years having gone by since then. The petitioner further submits that the charge for which the petitioner was subjected to, has already been negatived by the Courts below as also by the High Court in revision, and therefore nothing remains against him to be decided in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner further submits that the charge for which the petitioner was subjected to, has already been negatived by the Courts below as also by the High Court in revision, and therefore nothing remains against him to be decided in the departmental proceedings. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 , in the matter of UCO Bank and others v. MB Motwani (dead) through Lrs and others rendered in Civil Appeal No. 8516/2011 on 12.10.2023 , in the matter of State Bank of India and others v. Navin Kumar Sinha rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1279/2024 on 19.11.202 4, in the matter of M. Gopala Krishna Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1968 SC 240 and in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Chamal Lal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 . 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and submits that the challenge made by the petitioner is to the show cause notice which could be replied to by the petitioner, but as the petitioner did not choose to submit any reply to the same, this petition is premature. He further submits that acquittal of the delinquent employee in a criminal case would not debar an employer from exercising the power in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to him, nor such acquittal would preclude the employer from proceeding with the departmental enquiry as the yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from disciplinary proceeding. According to the counsel for the respondents/Bank the standard of proof in a criminal case is the proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the departmental proceedings it is the preponderance of probabilities. He further submits that the petitioner has not secured the honourable acquittal, rather he has been given benefit of doubt and therefore it cannot be said that he is innocent. He further submits that the petitioner has not secured the honourable acquittal, rather he has been given benefit of doubt and therefore it cannot be said that he is innocent. In support of his submissions, the reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 764 , in the matter of Suresh Patrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572 and in the matter of Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 385 6. Heard the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents/Bank, and perused the documents on record. 7. A prelude necessitous for conclusion : From the documents available on record it is lucidly manifest that at the relevant time when the incident of lurking house-trespass and theft in the UCO Bank allegedly by the petitioner had taken place in the month of November 2002, he was an employee of the said Bank posted at Kohka Branch, Bhilai as ALPMO. From the documents on record it is also clear that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, he faced the trial but came to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. This acquittal subsequently got affirmed in appeal and revision as well filed by the State as also by the Bank. Documents also go to show that on petitioner being charge-sheeted in the criminal case, he was placed under suspension which remained in force till filing of the instant petition. Against his suspension order, the petitioner filed WPS No. 2378/2023 where by order dated 18.04.2023 this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension within a period of 15 days therefrom, and consequently it came to be revoked by order dated 02.05.2023 asking the petitioner to report on duty. Against his suspension order, the petitioner filed WPS No. 2378/2023 where by order dated 18.04.2023 this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension within a period of 15 days therefrom, and consequently it came to be revoked by order dated 02.05.2023 asking the petitioner to report on duty. It is relevant to note here that while granting interim relief in favour of the petitioner in the instant petition which assails the show cause notice dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) vide order dated 21.07.2022 directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against him, this Court made an observation that the delay in issuing the show cause notice after a lapse of about 20 years was without any justification. 8. This Court now feels it apt to take note of the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) under challenge in this petition which relates to an incident of lurking house trespass and theft alleged against the petitioner to have taken place in the year 2002. To have a clearer vision as to its relevance particularly when it came to be issued after a long period of about 20 years, the reproduction of the show cause notice appears to be fruitive, and therefore, it is resorted to as under:- Show cause notice dated 23.05.2022 with respect to Charoda Branch 1. While you were posted at Charoda Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.1.00 lac from Mrs. Anita Chakraborty, Teacher, Jyoti Vidyalaya, Charoda Bhilai. You also tendered to her a post dated cheque bearing No.927401 dated 31.05.2002 for Rs. 30,000/- for due payment of the money borrowed from her. This sum of Rs. 1.00 lac was returned by you on 02.05.2002 after being insisted upon to do so. 2. While you were posted at Charoda Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.1.20 lac from Sardar Keshar Singh of Charoda and tendered following three cheques to Shri Keshar Singh for securing the repayment of above borrowed money: Cheque No. 927406 dated 30.08.2002 for Rs. 50,000/- Cheque No. 927407 dated 30.09.2002 for Rs. 50,000/- Cheque No. 927408 dated 30.10.2002 for Rs. 50,000/- “3. While you were posted at Charoda Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from Shri Kamal Singh Verma of village Dadar, PO Jangiri Dhamla, Dist. Durg and also tendered a cheque bearing No.927404 dated 31.07.2002 for Rs.48,000/- for securing the above borrowed money. 4. 50,000/- Cheque No. 927408 dated 30.10.2002 for Rs. 50,000/- “3. While you were posted at Charoda Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from Shri Kamal Singh Verma of village Dadar, PO Jangiri Dhamla, Dist. Durg and also tendered a cheque bearing No.927404 dated 31.07.2002 for Rs.48,000/- for securing the above borrowed money. 4. While you were posted at Charoda Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from Shri Rakesh Tiwari on 18/12/2002 and also tendered a post dated cheque. However after starting an enquiry by Mr. A.K. Mahapatra, you came to Mr. Rakesh Tiwari and handed over Cash Rs.45,000/- and took back the post dated cheque on 26/07/2002. 5. While you were posted at Charoda Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from Smt. Sharda Kedia and committed to pay Rs.1250/- per month on monthly EMI basis. However, after you have got transferred to Kahka branch you have not paid any money to Mrs. Sharda for four months. Further Mrs. Kedia has confessed before the police that you came to Mrs. Kedia on 02/11/2002 and handed over Cash Rs.1250/- and also committed to pay rest amount within the month end.” Show cause notice dated 23.05.2022 with respect to Kohka Branch “ 1. While you were posted at Kohka Branch, you left Branch at 4.10 pm and visited and remained Charoda Branch upto 8.00 pm till the remittance from Bhilai Sector-1 Branch received and Cash kept in Vault/Strong Room. During investigation you admitted having stolen cash of Rs. 13,99,190/- from Charoda Branch by using duplicate keys before Sub-Inspector N.K. Suryawanshi Police Station Old Bhilai. You further informed to the investigator that the entire stolen Cash was filled in yellow colour bag and the same was carried out to the house of your acquainted one Mr. Dhiraji (Baba) Ramadhin Nishad with the help of your own Blue coloured Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing Registration No. MP-24-J-5967. There the cash was shifted in Iron Trunk which was already kept there as per planning. You also informed to the Sub Inspector N.K. Suryawanshi that you took the help of Mr. Jaylal Nishad, Sahdevram yadav and Dhiraj Nishad for execution of the activity. Mr. Harishchandra Ratre, staff working in the Cycle shop of Mr. There the cash was shifted in Iron Trunk which was already kept there as per planning. You also informed to the Sub Inspector N.K. Suryawanshi that you took the help of Mr. Jaylal Nishad, Sahdevram yadav and Dhiraj Nishad for execution of the activity. Mr. Harishchandra Ratre, staff working in the Cycle shop of Mr. S.K. Das had given the statement before the police that you have come by Bajaj Chetak Scooter on 02.11.2002 & kept your Scooter at 5:30 pm in front of back gate of Charoda branch. He had seen you while you were coming out from the back side gate of branch and you were closing the Small Iron Gate. 2. While you were posted at Kohka Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- & some jewelry from Sri Ramnarayan Soni. However on the date of incident i.e. 02.11.2002 you handed over Rs.10,000/- to Mr. Soni. 3. While you wre posted at Kohka Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from Smt. Resham Bai. However, on 01.11.2002 you have returned Rs.2000/- to Mrs. Resham Bai. 4. While you were posted at Kohka Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.28,000/- from Sri Khuman Singh. However, on 04.11.2002 you have returned Rs.10000/- to Mr. Khuman Singh. 5. While you were posted at Kohka Branch, you borrowed a sum of Rs.36,000/- from Sri C B Dewangan. However on 03.11.2002 you have returned Rs.36,000/- to Mr. C.B.Dewangan.” 9. Even dated show cause notice containing almost similar allegations was issued to the petitioner on 07.05.2002 which has been filed by the petitioner as an additional document on 17.08.2022. The said notice states that on 02.05.2022 the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac from Smt. Anita Chakraborty – a bank customer. From the said notice it also appears that the borrowed money was later credited to the lender’s account, may be under some outside pressure as alleged by the Bank. This show cause notice also speaks of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- borrowed from the same person by tendering a post dated cheque of the said amount to her. To this notice also, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within a period of seven days from its issue date i.e. 07.05.2002. This show cause notice also speaks of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- borrowed from the same person by tendering a post dated cheque of the said amount to her. To this notice also, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within a period of seven days from its issue date i.e. 07.05.2002. This notice was replied to by the petitioner on 16.05.2002 (filed as an additional document on 17.08.2022) stating that the monetary transaction between him and Smt. Anita Chakraborty was absolutely in personal capacity just to lend a helping hand to one of his acquaintances namely Jagat Ram Sahu to ensure proper medical treatment to his seriously ailing wife namely Jaina Bai. In the reply to this show cause notice the petitioner is stated to have returned the money so borrowed and that the lender did not have any grudge against him. 10. If a close look is given to the show cause notice dated 23.05.2022 in respect of UCO Bank Charoda Branch which is under challenge in this petition also all the five point allegations made against the petitioner happen to be borrowing money from various private persons who according to the Bank were its customer, and then repaying the same. Even that borrowed money is stated to have been returned to the lenders as per document of Annexure P-24. There is nothing on record to show that those private persons had made any complaint against the petitioner regarding such monetary transaction. The first allegation in this show cause notice happens to be identical in nature involving the same amount, the same date and the same lender namely Anita Chakraborty, as was there in the show cause notice dated 07.05.2002 duly replied on 16.05.2002 (both filed as additional documents on 17.08.2022). Likewise, in relation to Kohka Branch of UCO Bank also most of the allegations pertain to monetary transaction between the petitioner and some private persons. Only one charge (charge No. 1) is there to the effect that petitioner had made a statement to the Investigator of having stolen an amount of Rs. 13,99,190/- from Charoda Branch of the UCO Bank by using duplicate keys. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has secured acquittal by the trial Court on 30.01.2017 which subsequently came to be affirmed by the appellate Court as also the Revisional Court. 11. 13,99,190/- from Charoda Branch of the UCO Bank by using duplicate keys. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has secured acquittal by the trial Court on 30.01.2017 which subsequently came to be affirmed by the appellate Court as also the Revisional Court. 11. The stand taken by the respondents in the return that the petitioner did not have the honourable acquittal rather it was by giving benefit of doubt, stands brushed aside being a hypothetical one. It is for the reason that the first judgment dated 30.01.2017 acquitting the petitioner of the charge under Sections 457 and 380 IPC emphatically says that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish these charges against him beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. What emerges from the documents on record is that in respect of the charge of theft and lurking house trespass against the petitioner, the criminal law was set in motion on 05.11.2002 by way of FIR being registered in the concerned police station, which eventually culminated in honourable acquittal in the Court of first instance on 30.01.2017. During this considerable long period of about 15 years the respondents/Bank did not appear to harbour an idea of dealing with the petitioner departmentally. Not only this, after the petitioner got acquittal in his favour by the trial Court, the State preferred an appeal against that, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 31.03.2018 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the revision was preferred by the State as also by the respondents/Bank against the appellate order dated 31.03.2018 but it too met the same fate on 28.01.2025 vide judgment (Annexure P-16). What makes inconceivable to this Court is that though the respondents/Bank participated in the long drawn trial against the petitioner which concluded in the year 2017 yet no idea all along struck their mind of taking departmental action against him. And all of a sudden in the year 2022, they woke up from their deep slumber and issued the show cause notice dated 23.05.2022 asking the petitioner to explain the charges contained therein within a period of seven days, or else he would be deemed to have nothing to say. This dilatory action-oriented approach seems to be quite worrisome. 13. And all of a sudden in the year 2022, they woke up from their deep slumber and issued the show cause notice dated 23.05.2022 asking the petitioner to explain the charges contained therein within a period of seven days, or else he would be deemed to have nothing to say. This dilatory action-oriented approach seems to be quite worrisome. 13. The Supreme Court has taken a consistent view that disciplinary action must be initiated within a reasonable period of time as the protracted inaction on the part of the employer for years together without any justification more often than not results in grave injustice to the delinquent employee. The unexplained inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings causes mental agony and in all likelihood it may vitiate such proceedings. 14. This Court is in full agreement with the argument of the counsel for the respondents/Bank that the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate in different field and that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically bar the departmental action. However, this principle is not absolute. The power of the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings should be exercised within a reasonable period of time so that the delinquent employee is not subjected to un-necessary mental harassment. Though no pre-determined principles are applicable to all the cases yet the delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and not after a long delay. It has also been held by the Supreme Court time and again that protracted disciplinary enquiry against the government employee should, as far as possible, be avoided. It has repeatedly been cautioned by the Supreme Court that the disciplinary proceedings should not be used as tool of oppression or subjugation, rather all administrative actions should be fair and that too within a reasonable period of time because the delay if any not only violates the service jurisprudence but also deprives the delinquent of the constitutional protection enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case in hand no explanation has come from the respondents/Bank worth the name justifying such enormous delay of about 20 years in issuing the show cause notice against the petitioner. In the case in hand no explanation has come from the respondents/Bank worth the name justifying such enormous delay of about 20 years in issuing the show cause notice against the petitioner. Another travesty of justice at the hands of the respondents in this case is that for more than 20 years the petitioner was kept under suspension, which was put to an end by way of judicial intervention on 02.05.2023 but yet no departmental action was initiated against him all along this long period. The legal position holding the field mandates that the protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should 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. 15. Dealing with such delayed charge sheet or show cause notice being issued to the delinquent government employees the Supreme Court in the matter of P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 has held as under:- “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. “ 16. Further, in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh vs N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 dealing with the issue as to how the delay in departmental action has to be treated, has held as under:- “19. “ 16. Further, in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh vs N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 dealing with the issue as to how the delay in departmental action has to be treated, has held as under:- “19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he s not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration.” 17. Further reiterating the same view in the matter of Amresh Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2025 INSC 417 it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- “17. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration.” 17. Further reiterating the same view in the matter of Amresh Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2025 INSC 417 it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- “17. …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 vs. Bani Singh and Another 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 vs. 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 disciplinary proceedings.” 18. Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court as particularized above counsel for the respondents/Bank has laid stress on the settled legal position that acquittal of the delinquent employee by a criminal Court does not preclude the employer from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. This Court does not have any two opinion regarding this proposition of the Supreme Court. But, this analogy is not attracted to the facts involved in the instant case where years together have been allowed to roll by and the respondents/Bank remained indolent during this considerable long period. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was not available to co-operate in the departmental action or that he evaded the same at any point of time. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was not available to co-operate in the departmental action or that he evaded the same at any point of time. No employer can be left free to its whims and fancies to start the disciplinary proceeding against its employee any time it gets out of slumber, which is what has happened in this case. The record clearly spells out that after the FIR being lodged, the petitioner was placed under suspension which remained in existence for nearly two decades. It is not that the respondents/Bank was not aware of the incident which had allegedly taken place in the year 2002 because the FIR itself was lodged by its Branch Manager and that the appellate judgment affirming the acquittal of the petitioner by the trial Court was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 733/2018 by it, but no departmental proceedings were ever contemplated during this along period. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the private financial transactions made between the petitioner and the persons named in the show cause notice had any nexus with the petitioner's official duties. From the documents on record it is apparent that an acquaintance of the petitioner being in dire financial distress having failed at other avenues in his pursuit for the helping hand, had approached the petitioner for a succor so as to be able to make available the medical treatment to his critically ill wife, and for that purpose he (petitioner) had borrowed money from various persons some of them happened to be the customers of the respondents/Bank. As already noted above, the petitioner had returned the borrowed money to the lending individuals and the receipts to this effect are also part of the record. No complaint of any sort appears to have been made against the petitioner by these assistance providers. All this thus establishes that the petitioner was not having any intention of defrauding any person for the purpose of personal gain, and therefore such financial transaction between the petitioner and the above named persons alleged nor any complaint against the petitioner was ever made by them in this regard. All this thus establishes that the petitioner was not having any intention of defrauding any person for the purpose of personal gain, and therefore such financial transaction between the petitioner and the above named persons alleged nor any complaint against the petitioner was ever made by them in this regard. Accordingly, from the record it can be safely culled out that the transaction made between the petitioner and the lenders purely a private and personal transaction unconnected with official position, and it does not constitute misconduct unless it is shown that the petitioner abused his official position, affected integrity in public service or violated a specific statutory conduct rule. 19. There is no dispute with regard to the argument of the counsel for the respondents that the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in a criminal case can go on simultaneously and the acquittal in a criminal case by a Court of law would not preclude the employer from proceeding against the delinquent employee departmentally, but it does not mean that the employer is free to do this any time out of his absolute volition whims and caprice. The law holding the field ordains that the properly unexplained inordinately delay of more than 20 years in issuing the show cause notice, as is in the case in hand, must not allow the departmental proceedings to continue putting the delinquent employee to suffer particularly when he is on the brink of superannuation. What all this signifies is that prompt action must be taken by the department. As far as present case is concerned there is no justifiable explanation by the respondents as to why they chose to wait for more than 20 years to issue the show cause notice in the year 2022 for the incident which took place in the year 2002. It is not their case that the petitioner resorted to any equivocation or evasion of the departmental proceedings. On the contrary, the record shows that the petitioner faced criminal proceedings right from the year 2002 in which he honourably came to be acquitted after a long drawn trial in the year 2017. All these criminal proceedings were apparently duly attended to by the respondents/Bank though they did not succeed in securing conviction of the petitioner up to the revisional Court. All these criminal proceedings were apparently duly attended to by the respondents/Bank though they did not succeed in securing conviction of the petitioner up to the revisional Court. In other words, from the documents on record it can safely be deciphered that the alleged act of the petitioner was very much within the knowledge of the respondents/Bank but still no departmental proceedings were initiated for about 20 long years. This must go in favour of the delinquent employee, the petitioner in the instant case. 20. Having thus discussed the aforesaid factual and legal position this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned show cause notices issued against the petitioner (Annexure P-1) appear to be an afterthought on the part of the respondent/Bank for the charge involving absolutely a personal and private financial transaction. As already noted above, there seems to be no justification in whipping a dead horse by reviving a quite stale incident having taken place in the year 2002 particularly when the matter was well within the knowledge right from the beginning. The show cause notice issued in the year 2022 for the incident allegedly occurred in 2002 cannot be allowed to be a basis to proceed departmentally particularly when during the pendency of the petition the petition has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly, the petition deserves and is hereby allowed and the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) under challenge in this petition is hereby quashed.