- (1.) HEARD Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Peti tioner and Mr. Ashok Shukla, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of 3t the admission stage itself. The petitioner has approached the Court for the second time against the order of suspension dated 1. 9. 2006. His first approach was at Allahabad, where the Division Bench did not intervene in the order of suspension and observed that the enquiry be concluded, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of giving a reply to the charge-sheet and now he has approached this Court at Lucknow again challenging the order of suspension, on the ground that the time period fixed for the enquiry has expired, but the enquiry has yet not been com pleted and the State Government did not pass final orders, despite the enquiry report being submitted on 16. 6. 2007, to which the petitioner submitted his reply long back. The anxiety on the part of the petitioner cannot be said to be wholly unrea sonable. It is settled principle of law that no Government servant can be allowed to remain under suspension for an indefinite period and the delay in holding the enquiry also causes prejudice to the Government servant in his service career. Various Government Orders have been issued and directives also have been issued by the Court in various jddgments that the enquiry should be completed expeditiously without any delay, but instances are no less in number that despite the directives issued by the Court and the Government Orders issued, the State Government and its authorities remain unperturbed and take their own time in completing the enquiry. In cases, where consultation with the U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'commission' for the sake of brevity) is required, the Commission also takes its own time, little caring and bothering that it is the Constitutional duty to speedily and submit its recommendations without unreasonable delay. The enquiry starts from the time when the charge-sheet is issued and end, when final orders are passed. Any authority or body, who is supposed to be a part of that enquiry may be as an Enquiry Officer or the Disci plinary Authority or Appointing Authority or a consultative body, like, U. P. Public Services Commission-all owe one and the same responsibility that the disci plinary proceedings should be concluded at the earliest. There cannot be any reasonable explanation for not concluding the enquiry for the reason that the matter is pending consideration before the Commission or any other consultative body whose advice may be required.
(3.) IN the instant case, on the basts of the instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel, it has been stated that the proposed final order for punishment has already been passed by the State Government but the matter is pending before the Commission for its advice/consultation. It is not known to the learned Standing Counsel as to when the order was forwarded to the Commission but the fact remains that the enquiry proceedings are held up, because the matter is pending before the Commission at present. This situation cannot be appreciated. The delay on the part of the State Government in not concluding the en quiry within the time provided by the High Court some times makes out a case for staying the operation of suspension order or for quashing the same, though there may be charges against a Government servant, which require inflicting of punish ment upon him. Simply because of the delay on the part of the State Government, the & orders are passed in favour of delinquent officers, who otherwise, would have 4 been awarded punishment. This also encourages indiscipline in service.;