IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 222 of 2009 (S/B) S.A. Asghar. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. .………. Respondents Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) During the course of hearing, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner for over an hour and a half. There was no occasion for us to hear the learned counsel for the respondents, as no such necessity arose. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied, that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are prima facie extremely serious. There is also a fact finding report against him indicting him on the allegations levelled against him. It is not for us to examine the veracity of the charges levelled against the petitioner, but having come to the conclusion, that the charges are prima facie serious, we are satisfied, that the State Government was fully justified in placing the petitioner under suspension. 2. On account of the fact, that the petitioner is due to attain the age of superannuation on 31.05.2010, it would have been appropriate for us to require the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner at the earliest. We have, however, been informed that inspite of the fact, that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner as far back as on 20.10.2009, a reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet is yet to be furnished by the petitioner. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the documents sought by the petitioner, so as to enable him to file the reply, were furnished to him only as late as on 15.01.2010. Be that as it may, still after a lapse of more than a month, no reply to the charge-sheet has been furnished by the petitioner. In these circumstances, as the petitioner does not seem to be cooperating with the 2 inquiry proceedings, we cannot direct the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings by a particular time. All the same, in case the petitioner files his reply without any further delay and participates in the inquiry proceedings as and when required, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to ensure the finalisation of the same at the earliest possible, preferably within two months from today. 3. The instant writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 16.02.2010 16.02.2010 G