Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Nirlay Gupta, learned State Counsel and perused the record.

Facts of the present case are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Collection Amin in the Revenue Department, State of U.P. on 10.11.1994 fallen ill, so not able to attend his duties. Accordingly, placed under suspension on 16.6.1994 on the ground of unauthorized absent from duty. Subsequently, the said order was revoked by order dated 28.6.1994, he was reinstated in service.

2. Thereafter again placed under suspension on 27.10.1994 and a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner but he refused to accept the same, so served on the wife/son of the petitioner and also published in a Newspaper.

As the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the charge-sheet, so the Inquiry Officer on the basis of material on record concluded inquiry and submitted the inquiry report to the punishing authority, who the impugned order of removal from service has passed.

3. Aggrieved by the said fact, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, as the same was not adjudicated and decided, so approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3053 (SS) of 2005 (Baij Nath Saroj v. State of U.P. and others), disposed of by order dated 7.12.2010, on reproduction reads as under :

“Heard Sri S.S.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that against the dismissal order, appeal has been preferred by him, which is pending before the Commissioner-appellate authority, which has not been decided.

4. Accordingly, this Court feels that in the interest of justice, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad may be directed to dispose of the appeal, on the basis of the reports submitted by the subordinate Officers, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

The writ petition is, thus, finally disposed of.”

5. Again for redressal of his grievances in the matter petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4755 (SS) of 2011 (Baij Nath Saroj v. State of U.P. and others), disposed of by order dated 9.4.2012, on reproduction reads as under :

“Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

With the consent of parties’ counsel, the writ petition is being heard finally.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that vide order dated 28.2.1996 the petitioner was awarded the punishment of removal from service. Against this order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was pending before the opposite party No. 2.

6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved had filed W.P. No. 3053 (SS) of 2005, which was disposed of finally vide order dated 7.12.2010 with direction to the opposite parties to consider and decide the pending appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law, say within a period of two months.

7. However, the opposite party No. 2 by order dated 21.1.2011 informed the opposite party No. 3 that the appeal of the petitioner stand decided vide order dated 9.2.2005 and as such there is no need to decide it again, a copy of the order dated 9.2.2005 is also on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

8. The perusal of order dated 9.2.2005 indicates that the representation dated 28.9.2004 preferred by the petitioner against the impugned punishment order dated 28.2.1996 was rejected on the ground that as per rules the period prescribed for filing representation is 90 days whereas the same has been filed after delay, therefore, it is not admissible in law.

9. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 3053 (SS) of 2005 it was specifically mentioned that no appeal was preferred.

Petitioner in fact had filed writ petition challenging the same impugned punishment order of removal, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

10. I have considered the submissions