- (1.) HEARD Sri S.A. Khan learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Sanjay Bhasin for the State.
(2.) THE Petitioner asserts that in view of earlier order passed in Writ Petition No. 1389(SB) of 2010 filed by him, since the enquiry had not been completed within a period of four months, as per directive issued vide 16.09.2010, the present enquiry proceedings be quashed including the charge sheet. The Petitioner relies upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of P.N. Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others reported in, 1999(17) LCD 24. In the aforesaid case of P.N. Srivastava (Supra) the enquiry was revived after stipulated period of four months in contemptuous disregard of the Court's order. The Court considered the case of State of U.P. v. Sri Krishna Pandey reported in : (1996) 9 SCC 395, where it was laid down that no lawful proceedings can be launched or trial can commence after the time fixed by the statutory rules.
(3.) RELIANCE was also placed upon the case of Major Radha Krishna v. Union of India reported in : (1996) 3 SCC 507 where the Supreme Court observed that any trial commenced after the period of limitation shall be patently illegal. Further reliance has also been placed upon the case of A.I.R. Karamchari Sangh v. A.I.R. Ltd. reported in : 1988(Supp) SCC 472, where the Supreme Court has made the following observation: The decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are almost as important as statutes, rules and regulations passed by the competent legislatures and other bodies since they affect the public generally.;