Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, Bhagwat Saran, was a Junior Engineer in U.P. Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the “UPPWD”). In 1991 he was working at Construction Division, UPPWD at Bansi. In respect to certain works which were measured and verified by him, the authorities found serious irregularities therein and consequently issued a charge sheet dated 13.3.2002 containing two charges. The aforesaid charges related to work done at Mehdawal-Bansi Road at kilometre 22 and Siswa-Bohli Road at kilometre 2.

3. The Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer and the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Bansi (District Siddharth Nagar) was nominated as Presenting Officer by Engineer-in-Chief, UPPWD vide order dated 28.2.2002. The inquiry could not conclude and in the meantime petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007. Since the inquiry could not be concluded till that date, and, the Inquiry Officer issued letter dated 23.7.2012 fixing 31.7.2012 as the next date for oral hearing, this writ petition has been filed, challenging the aforesaid notice of Inquiry Officer, on the ground, that, with such a delay, the inquiry is nothing but a sheer misuse of power and harassment of petitioner, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that a similar inquiry of this corresponding period was also delayed and on that ground it was challenged in Writ Petition No. 32930 of 2011, which has been allowed vide judgment dated 22.2.2012 and inquiry proceedings therein have been quashed. It is contended that the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the case in hand also.

4. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit stating that the inquiry could not be concluded due to non-cooperation by petitioner. Further since the petitioner retired during continuance of inquiry, the matter was referred for State Government for sanction under Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “CSR”). The said consent has been granted by State Government, vide order dated 29.9.2011, pursuant whereto the inquiry has been continuing.

5. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner virtually has reiterated whatever has said in the writ petition.

6. In order to find out what actually happened in disciplinary proceedings and why the matter remained pending for such a long time, the respondents were directed to produce inquiry record before this Court which has been placed for Court’s perusal.

7. The record show that certain complaints were received by State Government in respect of work performed by Sri Samarjeet Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD Bansi. A technical team was constituted to investigate the aforesaid complaint. The Chief Technical Examiner was assigned the responsibility of making aforesaid fact finding inquiry. The Executive Engineer concerned was directed to produce record by Chief Technical Examiner but he did not cooperate and ultimately a spot inspection was made between 17.12.1997 to 19.12.1997. The interesting thing is that in the meantime the concerned Executive Engineer, Sri Samarjeet Singh had already retired on 31.10.1997. Besides him two Assistant Engineers, who also assisted in the aforesaid work, namely, Sri R.B. Singh and Sri C.N. Tripathi, had also retired.

8. The Technical Examiner thereafter made attempts to collect relevant record but due to non-cooperation at all level, namely, Executive Engineer concerned, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer, could not get relevant documents. Based on the spot inspection as also whatever information he had, a report was submitted on 12.1.1998, by Sri Devendra Mohan, Technical Examiner, in which, on certain aspects, the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers were held responsible. He categorical