By the Court.—Heard Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Ashok Shukla, learned Standing Counsel.

2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

3. The petitioner has approached the Court for the second time against the order of suspension dated 1.9.2006. His first approach was at Allahabad, where the Division Bench did not intervene in the order of suspension and observed that the enquiry be concluded, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of giving a reply to the charge-sheet and now he has approached this Court at Lucknow again challenging the order of suspension, on the ground that the time period fixed for the enquiry has expired, but the enquiry has yet not been completed and the State Government did not pass final orders, despite the enquiry report being submitted on 16.6.2007, to which the petitioner submitted his reply long back.

4. The anxiety on the part of the petitioner cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable. It is settled principle of law that no Government servant can be allowed to remain under suspension for an indefinite period and the del