JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with several prayers, however, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture confines his prayer for a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a specific period and if the same is not concluded, the suspension of petitioner be revoked.

3. As per the factual matrix, pursuant to the notification published in the employment exchange for appointment of stenographers under respondent- Department, the petitioner and another person namely, Sushri Suchita Ekka applied for the same and upon found suitable for the job, they were selected and appointed vide office order dated 23.08.1988 to the said post. Thereafter, on false allegation that appropriate selection process was not followed, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 08.06.2019 and subsequently, removed from service vide order dated 18.06.2019. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent-authorities for consideration of his case. Subsequently, a departmental meeting was held on 03.02.2020, in presence of respondent No. 3 and other Officers of the concerned Department, whereby it was decided that a prima facie case of illegal appointment of petitioner is proved but as the due process of law has not been followed while removing the petitioner from service, the order dated 18.06.2019 was recalled and petitioner was taken back into service vide order dated 13.02.2020. Thereafter, on the basis of recommendation made in the meeting dated 03.02.2020, a fresh departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 19.02.2020, the petitioner was put under suspension. Though the enquiry has already been concluded and the enquiry report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer but till date neither the final order has been passed nor the order of suspension has been revoked.

Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been put under suspension w.e.f. 08.06.2019 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Assailing the impugned order dated 19.02.2020, learned counsel further argues that in the order itself it has been mentioned that the departmental proceeding shall be concluded within a period of 105 days but almost a year has been passed but the same has not been concluded as yet. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015), reported in Manu/SC/0161/2015 and another judgment passed by this Court in case of Satya Prakash Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P.S. No. 2194 of 2020, reported in Manu/Jh/0135/2021. Learned counsel further argues that since the departmental proceedings has not yet been concluded, a direction be given to the respondents to vacate the order of suspension and conclude the departmental proceeding at the earliest.

5. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, AC to learned AAG-IV vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that admittedly petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding as it was found that initial appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. Learned counsel further argues that there was a specific order to conclude the departmental proceeding preferably within a period of 105 days but the same could not have been completed because of situation arising out of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. Learned counsel further argues that already charge-sheet has been submitted and enquiry has been concluded and enquiry report has been submitted and the respondents are likely to pass a final order in the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel further argues that reliance of the petitioner on the judgment rendere