Arbitrariness in delaying the finalization of an enquiry violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to conclude the proceedings against the petitioner and if the petitioner is entitled for promotion, he may be promoted.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) IN this case on 16. 5. 2002, learned standing counsel was granted one months time to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. Hence, we are treating the allegations in the petition to be correct.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission and appointed in the year 1965. In the year 1974, he was promoted as Senior Auditor and in the year 1983 as District Audit officer and in the year 1987 as Assistant Director and in the year 1996 as Dy. Director. Being the senior most in the department on the retirement of the then Director in the year 1998, the petitioner was made Incharge Director. The petitioner has alleged that his service has been throughout good. However, it is alleged that one D. B. Singh, who was Financial Controller in police Headquarter, Allahabad was posted as Director by transfer on 5. 2. 2000.

( 5 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 8 of the petition that on the post of Director, 3 persons can be appointed viz. Joint Director of the Department, Joint and Deputy Chief Audit Officer, co-operative and Panchayat Department and thirdly, from amongst the officers of account service having senior scale. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition that though the petitioner was available for promotion and came within the first category, the respondents have chosen to appoint Sri D. B. Singh who was in the third category. In paragraph 12 of the petition, it is alleged that in February, 2000, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet which related to the year 1999 and he was accused of violating Section 3 (6) of the U. P. Public Service (Scheduled Caste, scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to) the Act as. The charge against him was that 2 scheduled caste and 4 other backward class candidates who were to be treated as general candidates under Section 3 (6) of the Act were treated as reserved candidates, which resulted in appointment of 6 more general candidates. True copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure-1 to the petition. Out of the 6 appointees, the present Director served only 5 clerks with termination orders on the ground of violation of Section 3 (6) of the Act. The 6 persons filed writ petitions in this Court and the termination orders have been stayed and the petition is pending.

( 6 ) THE petitioner filed a reply to the charge-sheet, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter an enquiry was held and a true copy of the enquiry report dated 26. 2. 2001 is annexure-3 to the petition. However, no final decision has been taken as yet oh the said enquiry report.

( 7 ) IN March, 2001 the Departmental Promotion Committee met under the Chairmanship of the chief Secretary for regular selection of Director. Sealed cover procedure was adopted in the case of the petitioner. It is alleged in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the petition that the enquiry could have been completed in a short period but that was not done and instead the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 30. 8. 2001, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition. True copy of the petitioners reply is Annexure-5 to the petition. Since the petitioner was retiring on 31. 1. 2002 and the respondents were not taking any decision in the matter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 35817 of 2001 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 7. 11. 2001 copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition directing the disciplinary authority to pass final orders regarding the enquiry within a month from the date of production of a copy of the order. Despite the order of this Court, the respondents took no action and hence, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, which is pending.

( 8 ) IN the meanti