AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs.Yogeeta Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2008 by which he has been placed under suspension has filed the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no Enquiry Officer has been appointed by the State Government and no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner, although, more than four months have elapsed. She further submits that on false and baseless grounds, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that very soon the charge sheet will be issued to the petitioner and there is no illegality in the impugned suspension order dated 17.11.2008. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner has been placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 17.11.2008. More than four months have elapsed but till date no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner, as alleged in the writ petition. We, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the opposite parties to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. The petitioner may file reply to the charge sheet within two weeks thereafter. The Disciplinary Authority shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law, within three months thereafter and communicate the decision to the petitioner. In case, the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded by 31.08.2009, it will be open for the petitioner to approach this Court again.