ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Udai Narain Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.R. Singh, learned special counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) In spite of time being granted, no counter-affidavit had been filed. It appears that it is not necessary to wait for the counter affidavit from the respondents as the petition can be disposed of finally upon the facts and circumstances stated in the petition itself. The Court, therefore, proceeds to dispose of the case finally, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, as envisaged by second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court 1952.

(3.) The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. An enquiry against his conduct as Government servant was instituted. He gave his explanation on 19th Aug., 1991. From the perusal of letter dated 18th Feb., 1992, a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition, it appears Inquiry Officer has completed the enquiry and submitted his report to the respondent No. 1 alongwith his letter dated 5th Jan., 1992. There is no material on record to show that the enquiry report has been either accepted or rejected. Final orders on the enquiry report are yet to be passed. In the meantime by means of an order dated 18th Feb., 1992, a copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the petition, the petitioner has been suspended on the ground that against him departmental enquiry is pending.