IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 723 of 2001 B.D. Oli .……… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others .………. Respondents. Present: Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Beena Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 4. Date of decision: 19-03-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The petitioner was working as a Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Bhimtal, Nainital, when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.1995. At the aforesaid juncture, the posting of the petitioner was in the composite State of Uttar Pradesh. The issue of allocation is irrelevant to the petitioner, in as much as, the petitioner retired from service prior to the re-organization of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. Almost three years after his retirement, by a communication dated 22.01.1998, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet. It is, therefore, that the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 723 of 2001, wherein he assailed the action of the respondents in initiating a belated inquiry against him three years after his retirement, as also in not releasing his retiral benefits. 3. On the last date of hearing, we required learned counsel representing respondent No. 4 to obtain instructions in the matter. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has since obtained instructions, she has informed us, that the Departmental Inquiry, initiated against the petitioner in furtherance of the chargesheet dated 22.01.1998, is still pending, even though more than 12 long years have passed by since then. She also informs us, that in furtherance of directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has regularly been paid provisional pension. 2 4. In the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove, we are satisfied, that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. The respondents were duty-bound to finalize the Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner at the earliest, keeping in mind, that this Court had directed the payment of provisional pension to the petitioner, despite thereof, the same has not been finalized till now. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view, that respondent No. 4 should be permitted to complete the Departmental Inquiry pending against the petitioner within three months from today, failing which the chargesheet dated 22.01.1998 will be deemed to have been dropped. In the aforesaid eventuality, the petitioner shall also be entitled to final pension, in accordance with the Rules. On the payment of final pension, as directed hereinabove, all of the retiral benefits, including gratuity, shall be released to the petitioner within a period of two months. 5. The writ petition stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 19.03.2010 19.03.2010 Amit