( 1 ) HEARD Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present writ petition is directed against the issuance of Charge Sheet dated 9-2-1988 issued by respondent No. 1 as well as letter dated 15-4-1989 issued by respondent No. 1 and communication dated 3-9-1990 issued by the Divisional Special Officer to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that the Government has decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry against him as per Government Order textile Section, dated 31-8-1989.

( 3 ) SHRI Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issuance of charge sheet dated 9-2-1988 itself is not sustainable in law in view of the order passed by this Court dated 24-3-1986 in Writ Petition No. 598 of 1987, which reads thus :"mr. V. D. Govilkar for the petitioner. Mr. M. B. Mehere, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. The enquiry to be completed and the report to be made not later than 15th June, 1986. Mr. Govilkar states that the petitioner will not apply adjournment at the enquiry. In the light of the above, Mr. Govilkar applies for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition in the event of the enquiry not being completed by 15th June, 1986. On Mr. Govilkars application, petition allowed to be withdrawn. "

( 4 ) SHRI Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the earlier occasion, the identical charge sheet dated 10-3-1986 was issued by the respondent and therefore, the petitioner filed the above referred Writ Petition No. 598 of 1986, challenging the validity of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner and the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 24-3-1986, which is stated as above. It is contended that since the respondent could not complete the enquiry before 15th June, 1986, they have moved a Civil Application No. 2950 of 1986, seeking extension of time to complete the enquiry. However, this Court dismissed the said civil application by observing thus :civil APPLICATION NO. 2950 OF 1986 in writ PETITION NO. 598 OF 1986 coram : LENTIN AND KURDUKAR, JJ. 14th AUGUST, 1986. Mr. M. B. Mehere, Assistant Government Pleader for the applicant. Mr. V. D. Govilkar, for the Opponent. P. C. LENTIN, J. : No case has been made out why time should be extended as prayed for, and the averments contained in the application for extension of time are cheerfully vague. Furthermore, it was because by our order dated 24th March, 1986 we directed the enquiry to be completed and the report to be submitted not later than 15th June, 1986 that Mr. Govilkar applied for permission to withdraw the petition which we allowed him to do so. If we had initially fixed the date later than 15th june, 1986 for the completion of the enquiry, Mr. Govilkar would not have applied for permission to withdraw the petition. Hence looked at either way, we see no reason why the opponent should be placed in an invidious position to his detriment, merely because the applicant has not taken expeditious steps to even start the enquiry much less complete it within the time ordered. Civil application dismissed. "

( 5 ) SHRI Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the application for extension of time was rejected by this Court, respondent ought to have completed the enquiry within the stipulated period i. e. on or before 15th june, 1986, however, failure to do so results in vitiating the enquiry proceedings. Shri Manohar, contended that in the instant case, the respondent issued a second charge sheet dated 9-2-1988 and the charges framed against the petitioner in the said charge sheet are totally identical in nature with that of the charges framed in charge sheet dated 3-6-1986. Not only that, the list of documents and the list of witnesses are also identical in nature which were relied by the r