JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner, by the instant writ petition, has raised challenge to the order dated 16 March 2022, passed by the first respondent, Principal Secretary, Vigilance Department, Lucknow, rejecting the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by this Court.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, briefly stated, is that petitioner is a civil servant and at the time of the alleged incident was posted as District Magistrate, Moradabad. It appears that a complaint dated 23 January 2017, came to be filed for alleged corrupt practices committed by the petitioner in discharge of his duty, accordingly, decision was taken to initiate vigilance enquiry and criminal prosecution against the petitioner pursuant to an enquiry report. Aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ Petition No. 32018 (M/B) of 2019. The relief claimed by the petitioner, noted in the order of the writ Court reads thus:

“This petition has been filed for quashing the impugned open inquiry report conducted by opposite party No.2 in pursuance of the unauthorized complaint made by the opposite party No.4, as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, contrary to the government orders dated 9.5.1997, 1.8.1997, 19.4.2012 and 24.5.2012 which is the basis of initiating the criminal prosecution against the petitioner, submitted by opposite party No.2, before opposite party No.1.”

4. The writ petition came to be disposed of directing the Chief Secretary to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of Government Orders. The relevant portion of the order dated 08 January 2020 is extracted:

“In the present case, vigilance inquiry has been conducted directly without adhering to the provisions of the Government Orders. The Government Orders clearly mention that first of all the complaints of the complainants should be ascertained preferably it is a normal procedure that class-I officers or other officers who are holding responsible posts, if a complaint is made against such persons, an affidavit should accompany the complaint. The first action is to be taken by the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority to the effect that a show cause notice should be given and in case it so pleases departmental inquiry can be initiated. It is very interesting to note that even in the complaint and the impugned sanction order, the impugned action taken by the opposite parties, the charge is not very clear. There is no charge of corruption, embezzlement or any other financial loss to the State Government. There has been no money transaction, there is no allegation of bribe, there is no allegation of any nepotism or malafide intentions.

At this juncture, the petitioner has submitted that his sole contention is on the premise that he has never been given any opportunity of hearing in the inquiry as it was required in the departmental procedure to explain his case. He has not been able to produce relevant documents and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Court feels that interest of justice will be satisfied if the petitioner is given a chance to represent his case before the Chief Secretary.

Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner will move a detailed representation before the Chief Secretary annexing all the relevant documents including the Government Orders and the provisions of the Constitution, his defence and the objections against the complainant and his complaint. This shall be done within a maximum period of fifteen days from today.

In case, such a representation is moved by the petitioner before the Chief Secretary, U.P., he will examine it and pass appropriate speaking orders after considering all the reasons which have been enumerated in the representation. It is provided that the opposite parties will not proceed against the petitioner till the representation is decided. The decision so taken shall be com