Inordinate delay in conducting a departmental enquiry without a satisfactory explanation can lead to the quashing of the charge-sheet and the release of the employee's retiral benefits.

I. P. Vasisth, J.

1. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the charge-sheet contained in Annexure 6 along with the consequent proceedings and a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release his full pension, gratuity, G. P. F. and other retiral dues.

2. AFTER putting in about three decades of service in the State Police Department, the petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 31-10-1990 on attaining the normal age of superannuation (58 years). It was pleaded that during his active service, vide their orders dated 10-8-1978 contained in Annexure 1 attacicd with the petition, the departmen tal authorities conveyed the following ad verse remarks to him for the year 1977-78:

a "but supervision over subordinate staff was not effective."

b. "he occupied office flat for residential purpose for which rent was paid by the Government and he also charged house rent from the Government which casts adverse reflection on his integrity. "

As a consequence of the aforesaid remarks, he was not allowed to cross the E. B. on 10-1-1978 which was the due date. However, in view of his representation, the respondents permitted him the crossing of the efficiency bar vide order dated 1-5-1979 contained in Annexure 2, but postponed the date of issue to 9th Jan. 1979 resulting in the loss of increased salary for full one year. The petitioner agitated the issue before the State Government which passed an order on 3-1-1980 as contained in Annexure 3 diluting the dverse remarks to some extent. To be precise, even though it did not say anything about the alleged laxity of super vision o- er the subordinate staff, yet on the institution of unauthorised drawal of house rent allowance and withholding the integrity certificate, it was ordered that the original remarks substituted by the following: "decision about integrity certificate will be taken after enquiry. " Still dissatisfied with the Govt. approach, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow questioning the very basis of both the aforesaid adverse remarks as well as the respondents action in postponing his entitlement to the higher scale by crossing the efficiency bar with effect from 10-1-1978.

3. THE respondents resisted the petitioner's claim, but ultimately the matter was decided in his favour vide Tribunal's order dated 19-7-1985 contained in Annexure 4. THE remarks with regard to ineffectiveness in supervising the subordinate staff as well as the adverse entry for the year 1978-79 were struck off. He was also al lowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 10-1-1978 instead of 9-1-1979 as contemplated by the respondents. Regarding the issuance of integrity certificate relating to the alleged withdrawal of house rent allowance while occupying the Government accommodation, the Tribunal directed the respondents to take an appropriate decision with in one month "failing which it would be treated as if certified.",

5. THE petitioner's grievance is that the respondents did not take any follow up action on the judgment of the Services Tribunal and still held up the integrity certificate; they did not even initiate any enquiry proceedings' with the result that he again knocked at the doors of the Government against the departmental antipathy. Ultimately on 19-8-1987 the Government passed an order as contained in Annexure 5 to the effect that the adverse entry relating to the lack of supervision over the subordinate staff should be deleted from the petitioner's character roll relating to the year 1977-78, integrity certificate be issued and the efficiency bar be allowed to be crossed- over by the petitioner with effect from 10-1-1978 as directed by the Tribunal. In short, the Government instructed the department to abide by the judgment of the Tribunal. Simultaneously, an order was also passed to take appropriate disciplinary action against the the persons responsible for holding u