Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Tushar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 20th March, 2006, issued by the District Magistrate, Sitapur as well as the departmental proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof, mainly on the ground that the same has been issued in utter disregard to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 5th December, 2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7930 (S.S.) of 2005. The petitioner has submitted that on a complaint of one Smt. Sukhrani that she could not file her nomination within time due to carelessness of the petitioner a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him and he was also suspended during the proceeding. The petitioner challenged the said suspension order dated 7.10.2005 issued by the District Magistrate as well as also the departmental proceeding through Writ Petition No. 7930 (S.S.) of 1995, which was finally disposed of on 5.12.2005 with the following directions : "Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the opinion that the departmental inquiry pending against the petitioner may be expedited. The petitioner shall be issued a charge sheet within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall submit his reply to the charge sheet within two weeks thereafter and inquiry officer shall complete the inquiry after affording opportunity of hearing etc. to the petitioner and submit his report within one month thereafter. After submission of the inquiry report and completing necessary formalities and procedure as provided under relevant service rules, the final order shall be passed within a period of four weeks thereafter. If the inquiry is not completed within the said stipulated period of three months, the operation of the order of suspension shall automatically come to an end. The petitioner shall co-operate with the inquiry officer for proper conduct of the inquiry. With theseobservations and directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of."
(3.) The petitioner has submitted that in contrary to the directions of this Court the charge sheet was prepared on 29.10.2005 and served on the petitioner on 23.12.2005, although the same was to be served on the petitioner by 19.12.2005. The petitioner also submitted the reply of the charge sheet on 4.1.2006, denying the charges on merit as well as also on the ground that same has been served upon the petitioner beyond the period stipulated by the Court, the departmental proceeding initiated in pursuance thereof is not sustainable in the eye of law. The petitioner has also submitted that after submission of the reply of the charge sheet vide letter dated 9th January, 2006 the inquiry officer fixed the date for inquiry on 16.1.2006, but the petitioner was not informed about the aforesaid date. As such Tehsildar issued notice on 16.1.2006 informing the petitioner about the date fixed in the inquiry on 20.1.2006. The aforesaid letter regarding date, time and place of inquiry was served upon the petitioner by the Tehsildar on 17.1.2006. The inquiry officer completely ignored the reply of the petitioner, that the charge sheet has been served on the petitioner much after the lapse of time provided by the Hon'ble Court. On the date fixed on 20.1.2006, when the petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer, the statement of Smt. Sukhrani, the complainant was recorded and the petitioner was afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter on 21.2.2006 the statement of Shri Satish Chandra, Tehsildar, Mishrikh, who submitted his preliminary inquiry report against the petitioner, was recorded. No independent witness has been produced on behalf of the State. After recording the aforesaid statement the inquiry officer fixed the date on 1.3.2006, on which date the petitioner moved an application, demanding the copy of the alleged statement of Smt. Sukhrani and further prayed that statement of Sri Naqvi Ahmad may be recorded after summoning him. The statement of Naqvi Ahmad was recorded on 1.3.2006 and thereafter the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 6.3.2006. The petitioner never took any adjournment in the case during the entire proceedings. The inquiry officer submitted report on 9th March. 2006, much after the period prescribed by the Court without seeking any extension of time, in spite of the fact that the inquiry report was to be submitted within a month from submitting the reply to the charge sheet. Since the final orders were not passed within three months, the suspension order of the petitioner should have been revoked and he should have been permitted to join the duties and must have been paid the salary for the entire period excluding the subsistence allowance.;