Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was working as a Deputy Director, Agriculture in the Agriculture Department in the District of Maharajganj was put under suspension by the order dated 27.8.2018. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ - A No. 18884 of 2018. However, after looking into the suspension order and after seeing to the seriousness of the allegations, this Court on 5.9.2018 disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the contemplated departmental enquiry be held and be completed within three months of the serving of the charge sheet which itself had to be served, within one month of the passing of the order on the petitioner. The operative portion of the order dated 5.9.2018 is being reproduced here as under: - "We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction that if the respondents have contemplated a departmental inquiry against the petitioner, then they shall issue a charge-sheet to him within a month from today and thereafter, shall bring the departmental proceedings to its logical conclusion within a further period of three months. Needless to say that the petitioner will co-operate with the inquiry and no unnecessary adjournment will be granted to any of the parties by the inquiry officer. The suspension order dated 27.8.2018 shall be subject to any final order which may be passed in the departmental proceedings."
(2.) Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing had been done and therefore he had approached this Court for the quashing of the suspension order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when as per the order 5.9.2018, the charge sheet had to be served upon the petitioner within a month then it ought to have been served upon him by 5.10.2018.;