IMPORTANT POINT
Time frames set by courts for inquiries are procedural; failure to meet them does not invalidate proceedings unless specific consequences are stated.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

Heard Sri Rishi Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

3. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs :

''(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the inquiry proceedings pending against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 22.10.2018, in the ends of justice.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to consider and promote the petitioner on the post of Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Department w.e.f the date his similarly situated batch mates i.e. Trade Tax Officers of 2002 Batch have been promoted and grant him further promotions thereby fixing his seniority at each stage on respective posts with all consequential benefits, in the ends of justice.''

4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 3074 of 2021 Inre; Anoop Kumar Singh v. State of U.P and others i.e. the petition filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow dated 22.10.2020 by which the claim petition preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 4.9.2019 was dismissed, had approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition.

5. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2023, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal as well as the punishment order dated 4.9.2019 and the order dated 2.3.2020 by which the review filed by the petitioner had been rejected. The writ Court remitted the matter to the inquiry officer and directed that he shall proceed after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner providing all the documents and an endevour would be made by the inquiry officer to take the inquiry to its logical conclusion from the date a copy of the order is produced before the competent authority.

6. It is contended that the judgment of the writ Court was served on the competent authority on 11.4.2023. It is contended that despite the aforesaid time frame being fixed by the Division Bench of this Court and the respondents also not having filed any application for extension of time granted by the Division Bench yet are still proceeding with the inquiry.

7. Placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, 2014(6) ADJ 641, the contention is that Full Bench of this Court has held that no inquiry proceedings can proceed beyond the time frame as has been fixed by the writ Court for deciding the said proceedings unless and until an application for extension of time has been moved and the same has been allowed by the Court concerned.

8. The contention is that once the time frame fixed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2023 has lapsed as such, the inquiry proceedings pending against the petitioner through the charge-sheet dated 22.10.2018 be quashed.

9. On the other hand, Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595, to contend that unless the writ Court has given the consequences of not concluding the inquiry within a specified time then the inquiry would not become vitiated in the eyes of law. He further contends that even though no application may have been moved by the respondents before the writ Court seeking extension of time yet considering the recent judgment of the Apex Cou