V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) IN the present case, petitioner has rushed to this Court with request to quash the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Bareilly, wherein he has asked the petitioner to submit his reply within 15 days to the report of the enquiry officer.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that the petitioner had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the District Magistrate had proceeded to pass an order on 03.08.2007 reverting the petitioner along with an adverse entry in his Character Roll. Against the said order, petitioner preferred appeal, the appeal was allowed on 03.05.2011, order of punishment dated 03.08.2007 was set aside and the matter was remanded back with direction to start the proceeding from the stage of Rule 9 (4) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. After the said order had been passed, District Magistrate on 10.10.2011 proceeded to supply copy of the enquiry report and asked the petitioner to submit his reply followed by reminders. At this juncture, petitioner has rushed to this Court contending therein that the District Magistrate is proceeding on totally wrong premises, whereas further disciplinary proceedings are required to be undertaken in consonance with the directions as contained in the appellate order dated 03.05.2011. Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated before this Court that the earlier enquiry report is farce, as after submitting reply no date has been fixed and based on the reply submitted, without holding enquiry opinion of guilt has been formed, and the District Magistrate is not complying with the directives given in the appellate order, and to the contrary has proceeded to supply copy of the report of the earlier inquiry officer, and based on the same proceedings are sought to be concluded, which would be n breach of the directives given by the appellate forum, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) COUNTERING the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter, which need not be interfered with.;