Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhinav Narain Trivedi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record. Facts in brief as submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Collection Amin was placed under suspension in the year 1985. Thereafter, an enquiry proceeding was initiated against him and by an order dated 30.6.1986, he was dismissed from his services. Subsequently, he made a representation to the competent authority, but no heed was paid. So, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6171 (SS) of 2002 "Ram Avtar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors.", disposed of by order dated 2.2.2005, on reproduction reads as under: Against the order impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner is said to have filed a departmental appeal before the opposite party No. 3, which is pending and till date has not been decided. It is hereby directed that the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be decided by the said opposite party (Opposite Party No. 3) within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said opposite party. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , on 3.3.2005 petitioner made a representation to the District Magistrate, Hardoi for taking necessary action in compliance of the above said order. By order dated 6.8.2005, the District Magistrate, Hardoi rejected the petitioner's representation and upheld the order dated 30.6.1986.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7922 (SS) of 2006 "Ram Avtar v. State of U.P. & Ors.", allowed by judgment and order dated 3.11.2008, the relevant portion is quoted herein below: In the result, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 30.6.1986 (Annexure No. 1) dismissing the service of the petitioner and the appellate order dated 6.8.2005 (Annexure No. 2) are hereby quashed. It is further directed that the respondents shall proceed with the inquiry from the stage of issuance of charge -sheet and the inquiry be proceeded with in accordance with law by observing the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law laid down by this Court, expeditiously, say, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. With the above terms, the writ petition stands allowed. Costs easy.;