M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order, dated 9.7.2001 whereby the petitioner was inflicted punishment by putting two black marks in his service book. It appears that the petitioner was put under suspension in 1997 and a departmental proceeding was initiated on the ground of certain charges. When the departmental proceeding was not concluded for more than three years, the petitioner moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 2799/99R which was disposed of directing the respondents to pass final order in the departmental proceeding within six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the said order. In spite of the aforesaid direction the departmental proceeding was not concluded and the petitioner was forced to approach this Court again by filing CWJC No. 1678/2001 which was heard on 26.4.2001 in presence of the counsel of the parties. This Court disposed of the said writ application by passing the following order : - - "This is one of the unfortunate cases which go to show that the State - respondents have no regard to the judicial orders passed by this Court, inasmuch as while disposing of the earlier writ petition on 25.9.2000, the respondent - authority was directed to dispose of the departmental proceeding within six months. It is submitted that the departmental proceeding has not been concluded as yet. Admittedly the petitioner was put under suspension as far back as in 1997 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. In this view of the matter, at this stage, without going into the merits of the case, the respondent - authority is given one more opportunity as a last indulgence to conclude the departmental proceeding within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the departmental proceeding including the order of suspension shall stand automatically quashed. It goes without saying that the petitioner will co -operate with the departmental proceeding failing which the authority will conclude the departmental proceeding ex -parte within the time aforesaid."
(3.) IN spite of the aforesaid direction the departmental proceeding was not concluded within three weeks. Learned SCI submits that because of the mistake in the communication of the order passed by this Court the departmental proceeding could not be concluded within the time -frame. Learned Counsel submitted that the respondents were informed that the departmental proceeding should be concluded within three months and, as a matter of fact, within three months final order in the departmental proceeding has been passed. I am unable to accept the explanation given by the respondents.;