A.K.Yog, J. - (1.) Petitioner alleges in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that he was working as Junior Engineer and he was suspended vide order dated 24th February, 1994. While under suspension, he was attached to Ghazipur Division of Rural Engineering Services under the State Government. In para 8 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and that an enquiry was going on when the writ petition was filed. Petitioner has filed on 27.11.1997 a supplementary affidavit after serving its copy in the Office of Chief Standing Counsel on 25.11.1997. Para 16 of the said supplementary affidavit reads--"that it is not out of place to mention here that from time to time Executive Engineers were appointed to hold and complete the enquiry about alleged charges mentioned in the suspension order dated 24th February, 1994, but till date none of them has completed, nor any irregularity or mistake on the part of the petitioner recovered or found out by the Executive Engineers". Time contemplated under Rules of Court for filing counter-affidavit to the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit under Rules of Court has already expired. There is no oral request or application on behalf of the respondents to file counter-affidavit or supplementary counter-affidavit, Averments in writ petition and the supplementary affidavit. hence, remains uncontroverted. It appears that enquiry against the petitioner had not been completed as per the material on record of the present writ petition.
(2.) On 13th August. 1996. the learned single Judge passed an interim order which reads-- "until further orders of this Court, the transfer order dated 10th July, 1996, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, shall remain suspended and he would remain under suspension attached to the Division Ghazipur. The respondents are further directed to complete the disciplinary inquiry within' four months of service of the copy of this order".
(3.) Supplementary affidavit in the present case was sworn on 25th November, 1997. Conspicuously enough, there is no averment in the supplementary affidavit to the effect that the above referred order dated 13th August. 1996 passed by the learned single Judge (Hon'ble S. C. Verma, J.) was served upon the respondent. In absence of a categorical averment to that effect, it cannot be presumed that said order was communicated to the concerned authorities. Learned standing counsel also shows his inability to confirm whether said order was communicated or not to the concerned authority. Hence, cannot be said that the concerned officer i.e., officer responsible for conducting inquiry and disciplinary proceedings are guilty of not complying with the order dated 13th August, 1996 passed by this court.;