1.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in disciplinary proceedings the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, petitioner approached this court by way of filing Writ petition No.7264(SS) of 2008, which was allowed vide judgment dated 20.4.2010, Annexure-4. Operative part of the judgment reads as under:
" The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order of dismissal dated 02.09.2008, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The opposite parties will be at liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner from the stage of filing of his reply and hold an enquiry in accordance with law after fixing date, time and place and informing the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner shall be reinstated formally for the purpose of holding enquiry. He shall not be entitled to back wages nor he shall be assigned the work. The enquiry proceedings shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the enquiry."
2.Learned counsel while relying on a judgment rendered by this court in 1999 (17) LCD 24, P.N. Srivastava v. State of U.P. & ors., contends that it was mandatory for the respondents to abide by the conditions laid down by the High Court in its judgment dated 20.4.2010 and conclude enquiry/disciplinary proceedings within the time frame provided. If the needful could not be done, respondents were required to seek extension of time.
3.Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 27.9.2010. He was allowed to join his duties. The respondents, however, did not initiate the enquiry proceedings within reasonable time from the stage from where it was ordered in the judgment (Annexure-4) rendered by this court. Rather the respondents issued fresh chargesheet on 24.6.2011.
4.Because other persons, accused of the similar misconduct, had been exonerated, the petitioner sought certain documents including enquiry reports in regard to other similarly situated persons vide communication dated 20.7.2011. The enquiry officer has asked the concerned department to supply the documents vide communication dated 19.12.2011 and subsequent reminder on 31.5.2012 (Annexure-14). The documents have still not been supplied to the petitioner.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that because the continuance of proceedings is against the spirit of judgment rendered by this court in P.N. Srivastava's case (supra), further proceedings are rendered without jurisdiction.
6.Sri Ravi Singh, who appears for respondent no.2 prays for one week's time to file counter affidavit.
7.Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Government Advocate, puts in appearance for respondent no.1.
8.At this stage, respondent no.3 is not required to be served.
9.List on 04.10.2012.
Order Date :- 18.9.2012 A.Nigam