JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajey Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs:

''(i) issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.8.2020 passed by the opposite party No. 1, as contained in Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certioari quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 14.6.2013, passed by the opposite party No. 1 as contained in Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Additional Commissioner Grade -II, Commercial Tax from the date the persons junior to the petitioner namely have been promoted on the said post of Additional Commissioner Grade-II, Commercial Tax with all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary etc. which have been denied on the basis of pending enquiry.

(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus commending the opposite parties not to take into consideration the impugned orders i.e. Annexure 1 and 2 to this Writ Petition while considering the candidature of the petitioner promotion in ensuing departmental promotion committee.

(v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner.

(vi) Cost of the Writ Petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.''

2. At the very outset, Sri Ajey Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for one reason or another, the petitioner has been subjected to the departmental enquiry since 2013, to be more precise w.e.f. 14.6.2013 when the petitioner was placed under suspension. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 18.8.2020 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition issued by the Special Secretary of the department whereby recital to this effect has been given that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.6.2013 and the petitioner has been assailing such mala fide exercise since then.

3. The present controversy is limited to the extent that the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' in short) has passed a judgment and order dated 10.12.2019 in Claim Petition No. 1329 of 2019, whereby the petitioner had assailed the punishment order dated 16.5.2019 withholding three increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Operative portion of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.12.2019 reads as under:

''The claim petition is allowed. Impugned order of punishment dated 16-05-2019 (Annexure 1) is hereby quashed. However the opposite parties will be at liberty to make inquiry afresh from the stage of show-cause notice. If re-enquiry is initiated such enquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry. Entitlement of consequential service benefits denied to him due to impugned punishment order shall be decided by disciplinary authority according to final outcome of enquiry.''

4. Perusal thereof clearly reveals that while quashing the punishment order dated 16.5.2019, the Tribunal granted liberty to the concerning authority to make fresh enquiry from the stage of show-cause notice within a period of three months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid period of three months was expired in the month of March, 2020 but the first order was passed by the Special Secretary of the Department on 18.8.2020, the impugned order, appointing one Additional Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow as an enquiry officer in the issue of the petitioner directing him to conduct and c