- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Arun Kumar Tyagi, K. A. Gupta and Madan Gopal are the three petitioners in this petition. The challenge in this petition is to the two resolutions of the Cantonment Board (for short Board) dated 19-5-1993 and 18-6-1993 whereby all the petitioners were made to face dis ciplinary proceedings and were suspended on various grounds. A further prayer has been made that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the res pondent No. 2 i. e. Cantonment Board, Meerut not to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioners.
(2.) WHEN this petition was initially filed in this Court on 2-9-1993, a learned single Judge granted an interim order to the extent that disciplinary proceedings was to go on against the petitioners in accordance with law but final orders were not be passed therein. The respondents came up to this Court with an application to vacate the interim order. After hearing both the parties, the interim order was vacated and it was held by a Division Bench that the proceedings shall go on against the petitioners and the result thereof shall be subject to the result of this writ petition. The present factual position is that the entire disciplinary pro ceedings against all the three petitioner have been completed. Not only that an appeal against the aforesaid order imposing certain punishment in those proceedings was filed by petitioner No. 2, K. A. Gupta and also by petitioner No. 3, Madan Gopal, the appeal of. one of whom is pending while that of other stands finally disposed of. It is admitted to the parties that A. K. Gupta's appeal has been allowed to the extent that he has been held guilty though, the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service has been substituted. So far the appeal filed by Madan Gopal is concerned, it is still pending. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1 Arun Kumar Tyagi has not filed any appeal so far. In these circumstances, Madan Gopal has filed an application praying therein that the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn in so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned and during the course of the argument, it was said that the appeal of petitioner No. 3 Madan Gopal may be directed to be decided in accordance with law expeditiously. Concerning the matter of petitioner No. 1 Arun Kumar Tyagi, it was strongly contended that in view of what has happened in this case in the meantime and further developments that took-place, the conviction order against Arun Kumar Tyagi should be straightway set aside by this Court. It was further contended during the course of arguments that in view of the aforesaid new development and specific orders that have come into exis tence, there is no option left to this Court but to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and quash all the proceedings against petitioner No. 1 Arun Kumar Tyagi. Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed several affidavits and has been heard at substantial length.
(3.) SRI Vivek Chaudhary has put in appearance on behalf of Canton ment Board, Meerut and has tiled replies to each and every affidavit that was filed by the petitioners and there was no lack of vehemence in placing the case of respondent Board. The writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage, as prayed by learned counsel for the parties Before entering into the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, let it be clarified at the outset that none of the observations made in this writ petition shall be used by any party in any proceedings hereinafter and shall be confined only for the conclusions to which this judgment is arriving at.;