Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) Petitioner herein had earlier approached this Court challenging the order of suspension, which was decided on 27.07.2016 in following terms:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel representing the Lucknow Development Authority. Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 20.07.2016, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of certain charges levelled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to suggest certain explanations to the charges levelled against him. While examining the suspension order, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the explanation which may be available to a suspended employee. The Court cannot, in fact, act as an enquiry officer. If the Court ventures into examining the charges and explanation, the same will amount to prejudging the issue. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned suspension order. The petition is, thus, hereby dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to complete the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, say within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
(3.) Thus, a time frame of four months was prescribed for completing the disciplinary proceedings but the Court was not inclined to interfere with the suspension order and the writ petition was dismissed with these observations.;