- (1.) These three writ petitions relate to the subject matter pertaining to a prayer made for an enquiry and conclusion of investigation by the U.P. Vigilance Establishment against Umesh Kumar Tripathi, the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow.
(2.) The other relief prayed for is to immediately transfer the said D.I.O.S. from Lucknow to some other non-sensitive post pending enquiry and investigation as his placement at Lucknow is likely to hamper the same and even otherwise once having been found in possession of disproportionate assets and facing allegations of corruption, there is a complete loss of confidence and public trust which should not be reposed in such an official for which reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and another v. Union of India and another [(2005) 8 SCC 202] and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.29592 of 2016, Akhil Bhartiya Manav Kalyan Evam Samojoththan and another v. State of U.P. and others with special reference to the order dated 1.7.2016 passed therein and the final judgment dated 19.9.2016. The said orders are reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 353 (DB) and 2016 (6) ALJ 161. The petitioners' counsel has also invited the attention of the Court to the judgment in the case of Mohan Ram v. State of U.P. and others [(2009) 2 UPLBEC 1509] to urge that this very D.I.O.S. had been subjected to an imposition of fine on account of his dereliction in duty while working as a D.I.O.S. in another district.
(3.) These three writ petitions were heard and a supplementary affidavit was filed on 28.11.2016 by the petitioners whereupon the Court has called upon the learned Standing Counsel to inform the Court about the status of the enquiry against the Officer. The Court again had passed an order on 30.11.2016 to the following effect:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Tripathi for the State who has produced before us the written instructions tendered by Ram Narayan Ram, Inspector and duly countersigned by the Superintendent of Police of the Vigilance Department, Lucknow Sector, Lucknow. A perusal of said instructions only indicates that the enquiry is still progressing about which the information was made over to the Department way back on 21st of August, 2012. The instructions further states that there is no deliberate delay in concluding the enquiry and investigation. We had entertained this writ petition and we had called the learned Standing Counsel to inform the Court as to within what time would the investigation be concluded but till date no information has been given or tendered by the learned Standing Counsel nor any such averment is contained in the instructions that have been placed before the Court. This attitude of the Vigilance Department cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the enquiry/investigation was initiated way back in the year, 2012. There is no reason to believe that the enquiry and the investigation has been effectively carried out and there is every reason to presume that it has been delayed unnecessarily for the past four years. The Court, therefore, would hold responsible the concerned officials who have been entrusted with this task and in the event the enquiry and investigation is not concluded within six weeks from today, the Director, U.P. Vigilance Establishment-respondent no. 5 shall be personally present before this Court to explain the conduct of such officials through an affidavit as to why and in what manner has this investigation been scuttled and not concluded in spite of lapse of four years. The matter shall be listed immediately after expiry of six weeks on 5th of January, 2017.";