JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - By order dated 19-1-1988 the opposite parties were required to serve copy of the counter-affidavit upon the learned counsel for the petitioner within four weeks and the petitioner was required to serve copy of the rejoinder affidavit within three days. The time for exchange of affidavits has expired but no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. The petitioner who has appeared in person has stated that his counsel has not received copy of the counter-affidavit from the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. We have, therefore, to proceed on the basis of the facts stated in the writ petition. 2. According to the averments made in the Writ Petition a Vigilance Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in respect of the alleged irregularities committed by him while he was posted at Etah as Assistant Engineer (Buildings) under the Provincial Division of the Public Works Department, Mathura. The Administrative Tribunal II, Opposite Party No. 2 in the present petition issued charge-sheet to the petitioner on 28-12-1981. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges on 14-3-1983. The petitioner states that thereafter a number of dates were fixed by the Administrative Tribunal but the enquiry has not been concluded. The petitioner claims to have made an application before the Tribunal on 19-11-1987, wherein apart from other reliefs, the petitioner prayed that the enquiry pending against him may be concluded without delay. The petitioner asserts that although the proceedings were initiated in the year, 1981 and more than six years have elapsed the proceedings have not been concluded which is causing him extreme hardship as juniors to him are being promoted and he is not being considered for promotion. The petitioner has, therefore, claimed a writ of mandamus to direct the opposite parties to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending before the opposite party No. 2 since December, 1981 within the time to be fixed by this court. He has also prayed that a mandamus be issued to command the State of U.P. to consider him for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and other higher posts as if no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. 3. The petitioner has invited our attention to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. He has also prayed that a mandamus be issued to command the State of U.P. to consider him for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and other higher posts as if no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. 3. The petitioner has invited our attention to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. Bhupindar Singh v. Union of India and others, 1982 UPLBEC 434 , wherein mandamus in terms prayed for by the petitioner was issued by their Lordships. He has also invited our attention to the judgment of this court dated 4-3-1983 passed in Ram Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 6065 of 1982 in which also similar directions were issued. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the precedents relied upon by the petitioner, we find that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him specially in the absence of any justification from the side of the opposite parties. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the Administrative Tribunal II through its Chairman opposite party No. 2 commanding it to dispose of the proceedings pending before it against the petitioner within six months of the production of a certified copy of this judgment before the Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal II. A writ of mandamus shall further issue to the State of U.P. opposite party No. 1 to the effect that if the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner are not finally concluded within six months as directed, the State will consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and other higher post as if there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against him. We clarify that the order will not result in exoneration of the petitioner from the charges levelled against him but the promotions legitimately due to him will not be withheld on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending. There shall be no orders as to costs. 6. A copy of this order shall be supplied to the petitioner on payment of requisite charges within four days of his applying therefor.