B.P.Singh, J.

1. Both these writ petitions were filed on September 17, 1990 for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the resolution dated August 1, 1990 (Annexure-1). It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the higher post of Senior Joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, through the Departmental Promotion Committee which was to meet on September 19, 1990. Both the petitioners at the relevant time were Joint Commissioners, and it is their case that with a view to victimise them and to deprive them of the promotion legally due to then, the instant proceedings were drawn up mala fide, and after considerable delay.

2. In C.W.J.C.No. 6167 of 1990 S.P.Tiwary is the petitioner. Annexure-1, which has been impugned, is the resolution dated August 1, 1990, whereby departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. It appears from the Schedule to Annexure-1 that the petitioner was charged of having not followed the prescribed procedure in the matter of appointments, and to have appointed four Counter Clerks against the rules and despite the fact that he had no power of appointments. In making the appointments the petitioner did not ask for names from the Employment Exchange, did not follow the rules relating to reservation, and made the appointments without holding a test to judge the standard of the candidates appointed. It is not necessary to refer to the averments in the writ petition which were made with a view to challenge the impugned order, because admittedly the petitioner has been superannuated from service on January 31, 1991. It was, therefore, submitted that in any event, the petitioner having been superannuated from service, the disciplinary proceeding cannot be continued since no final order was passed while the petitioner was in service. As earlier observed, the case of the petitioner is that the appointments were made in accordance with the rules and no illegality was committed. The appointments were made as far back as in the year 1981. The persons so appointed have been continued in service. Though the appointments made were with the knowledge of the superior authorities, and in fact with their approval, no action was taken. It is, therefore, submitted that only with a view to deprive the petitioner of his chance of promotion, the instant proceeding was initiated. It also appears that an enquiry officer was appointed. The report of the enquiry officer has been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-A. The enquiry officer has found only one of the charges partially proved. He has held that none of the other charges has been proved and all that has been proved is that in making the appointments the petitioner did not literally follow the rules relating to reservation. It was found that when candidate belonging to reserved category with the requisite qualification was available for appointment, the petitioner should have first obtained appropriate orders for appointing a person from the general category against the post. The enquiring officer has further held that the contravention of this rule was not mala fide nor did the petitioner act with any bad intention. It is admitted that the disciplinary authority has passed no order after the submission of the enquiry report. In the writ petition itself it was stated that the petitioner was to superannuate in about four months time i.e., on January 31, 1991. In the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that the petitioner has been since superannuated with effect from that date. It is not disputed before me that no order has been passed against the petitioner imposing any punishment pursuant to the report of the enquiring officer.

3. The facts of C.W.J.C. No. 6182 of 1990 are also similar and in that case as well the charge was that the petitioner had appointed one Clerk in breach of the prescribed procedure and the