The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for leave to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was filed in a sheer illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted manner and in gross disobedience of the court's direction, and therefore, dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Applicant/opposite parties in the writ petition and Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondents in the present application.

2. Admittedly, the writ petition bearing Service Single No. 30782 of 2018 (Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) has already been decided finally on 27.5.2019 but the State opposite parties have filed the application under the title of "Application for Leave to Pass Final Order In Disciplinary Proceedings Against The Petitioner In Terms Of Directions Contained in Judgment And Order Dated 27.5.2019" on 29.7.2022.

3. For disposal of the aforesaid application it would be necessary to reproduce the final order dated 27.5.2019 herein below:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The precise submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of order dated 20.5.2018 the petitioner was placed under suspension and this Court vide order dated 17.11.2018 was pleased to stay the suspension order. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.2.2019 the petitioner was reinstated in service. However, no posting order was passed. On 10.5.2019 the posting order was issued by the opposite party. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was issued charge-sheet on 13.11.2018 and he submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 5.2.2019.

As per learned counsel for the petitioner after the order dated 28.2.2019 the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance for the suspension period and has been paid salary w.e.f. 28.2.2019 till 10.5.2019. Further after stay order being passed by this Court the petitioner was paid part of subsistence allowance and thereafter after the reinstatement order he has been paid the entire subsistence allowance.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the suspension order was withdrawn by the opposite parties in compliance of the order dated 17.5.2018 of this Court then the petitioner is legally entitled for the arrears of salary for suspension period. He has also submitted that the petitioner should have been paid salary w.e.f. 17.11.2018 till 28.2.2019 but he has been paid salary w.e.f. 28.2.2019 and has been paid subsistence allowance till 28.2.2019 which was not proper since this Court has granted interim order on 17.5.2018. He has further submitted that since he has already submitted his defense to the charge-sheet, therefore, the direction for conclusion of departmental inquiry may be issued within time frame.

The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner finds force.

Since the suspension order of the petitioner has been withdrawn, therefore, the opposite parties are directed to pay arrears of salary for the suspension period excluding the payment which has been made to the petitioner in the name of subsistence allowance for the suspension period even till 28.2.2019 with promptness. The opposite parties are also directed to conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry strictly in accordance with law following the principles of natural justice with expedition preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today and thereafter the final order may be passed, if so required within further period of one month. In any case the final order in the matter may be passed on or before 31.8.2019 inasmuch as the petitioner has filed reply to the charge-sheet on 5.2.2019.

If no final order is passed within aforesaid stipulated period i.e. 31.8.2019 and the disciplinary authority may pass final order but after seeking prior leave from this Court.

Since no counter affidavit has been filed in the present matter but in the wake of aforesaid developments, the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage in view of the aforesaid terms."

4. Notably, while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition finally the direction was issued to the opposite p