Rajesh Singh Chauhan - (1.) Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj.
(2.) The petitioner has impeached the inaction and victimization of the petitioner whereby he was being harassed with effect from the year 1998 for no plausible reasons and despite the specific order being passed in the mater of the petitioner by the Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad on 14.09.2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22317 of 2003; Gopal Chandra Sinha vs. State of U.P. & others, 2005 3 UPLBEC 2929, whereby this Court was pleased to quash the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner from the stage of submission of reply of the charge-sheet including the final order of punishment awarded to him on 05.04.2003 permitting the Competent Authority to pass appropriate consequential orders to that effect with further direction that in case the authority comes to the conclusion that any fresh departmental enquiry is still required to be held against the petitioner such fresh enquiry shall be completed within further period of three months, but the Competent Authority did not conduct and conclude the departmental enquiry within the aforesaid stipulated time after issuing a letter dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) apprising to the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has been appointed and the enquiry against him shall be conducted pursuant to the earlier order dated 08.05.1998 and the petitioner was to submit defence reply to earlier charge-sheet dated 08.05.1998. Therefore, the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders dated 13.01.2006, 08.05.1998 and the charge-sheet dated 08.05.1998 on the ground that the issue is pending for more than twenty years and the aforesaid exercise has been carried out in violation of the judgment and order dated 14.09.2005 (supra) inasmuch as vide order dated 14.09.2005 the authorities were permitted to complete the departmental proceedings against the petitioner within a period of three months, but the letter dated 13.01.2006 has been issued after about four months, which shows that the Competent Authority has got no respect towards the orders of the Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of pendency of the departmental proceedings, as aforesaid, the petitioner has not been paid his consequential benefits.;