ABDUL MOIN,J. - (1.) Heard Sri I.P.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prafful Yadav, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri W.U.Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. With the consent of learned counsels for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.
(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved with the suspension order dated 23.10.2017, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition is before this Court. A further prayer is for holding the inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner through Office Memorandum dated 23.10.2017 to be vitiated and to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Member of the Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) on a suitable post as per his seniority. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been placed under suspension by means of the impugned suspension order dated 23.10.2017, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. A charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner on 18.12.2017. After the petitioner had been made available the documents as were required for his reply, he claims to have submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 15.05.2019. Since then the respondents have not proceeded further with the inquiry and are also keeping the petitioner under suspension. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) A preliminary objection was taken by Sri Prafful Yadav, learned Standing counsel that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 54141 (Writ-A) of 2017 Inre; Ghanshyam Singh Vs. State of U.P and Ors at Allahabad challenging the same suspension order but this Court dismissed the petition with the direction to the disciplinary authority to get the inquiry completed against the petitioner expeditiously. Copy of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2017 has been filed as annexure 2 to the petition. Sri Yadav contends that once the earlier petition against the same suspension order has already been dismissed, consequently the present petition which is a second petition challenging the same suspension order would not be maintainable.;