By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for following prayers :

(a) for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6th February, 2013 by which re-enquiry has been ordered against the petitioner;

(b) for issuing a writ, direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the charge-sheet dated 18 April 2011;

(c) for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to remove the name of the petitioner from the provisional list and place it in regular list issued vide notification dated 27th of normal 2012; and

(d) issuing a writ order or certiorari in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to forthwith appoint the petitioner to the Indian Administrative Service cadre.

2. It has been mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioner was posted as a Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in Moradabad from July, 2006 to January, 2009. Sometimes in 2009, the then Commissioner Moradabad Division referred for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner in respect of 21 judicial pronouncements to the State Government. An enquiry of this nature cannot be resorted to, unless there are complaints of irregularities or malpractice by the officer concerned, or there is overwhelming evidence of any extraneous consideration in discharge of his duty. The petitioner was transferred in February, 2009 to the post of Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Moradabad, and thereafter, he was posted as Additional Commissioner (Judicial). Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred as Chief Development Officer District Bijnor. When the petitioner came to know about the above disciplinary proceedings, he submitted a representation to the Principal Secretary (Appointments). On 18 April 2011, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner containing six charges and Commissioner, Bareilly Division was appointed the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer served a copy of the charge-sheet to the petitioner. Petitioner wrote a letter dated 10 January, 2011 that he has already made a representation for dropping the enquiry, as the same was against law. The enquiry officer recommended for dropping of the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 1.7.2012. Departmental promotion committee was held in the month of November, 2012 for appointment to IAS cadre. On 26th November, 2012, the minutes of the meeting of DPC was approved. On that, same day Principal Secretary (Appointments) issued a letter to Divisional Commissioner, Moradabad asking for updated status of the cases listed in the charge-sheet. On 27.11.2012, a notification was issued by Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India in which petitioner was placed in provisional category. On 5th December, 2012 the Divisional Commissioner, Moradabad Division wrote about the status of the cases, which were subject-matter of enquiry against the petitioner, alongwith the report of the District Government Council (Revenue). The District Government Council has, in his report, mentioned that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is wrong. Between July, 2012 and December, 2012 the petitioner several times met with Principal Secretary (Appointments) and requested that the disciplinary proceedings, which has been initiated at the very inception, is without jurisdiction and against the law and the enquiry officer has already exonerated the petitioner, and disciplinary proceedings should not be made to stand in the way of the petitioner being appointed in IAS cadre. The petitioner, time and again, requested opposite party No. 1 to drop the disciplinary proceeding so that the impediment against him for appointment to the IAS cadre is removed, but opposite party No. 1 had not taken a decision on the enquiry report, and thus, the petitioner was placed in the provision of select list. Opposite party No. 2 ought to have cleared the appointment of the petitione