ORDER S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioner who was holding the post of an Assistant Engineer in the department of Rural Engineering Services, was repatriated to Ground Water Investigation Organisation which has now become a department of Government of Uttar Pradesh which was his parent department, being aggrieved against the said order of repatriation, he preferred a writ petition bearing No. 1741 of 1987. In that writ petition the petitioner raised a grievance that while he was appointed alongwith one Sri Dinanath who was confirmed in Rural Engineering Services; although both had applied for their permanent absorption in the Department of Engineering Services, but he was discriminated inasmuch as he was not confirmed and absorbed in the department of Rural Engineering Services and repatriated to Ground Water Investigation Department although no inquiry was pending against him. 2. It was averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not absorbed in the department of Rural Engineering Services for the reason that he was awarded adverse entries by his superior officers during the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, which were communicated to him and there were several complaints against him pertaining to certain construction works as a result of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was repatriated to the parent department. 3. In the earlier writ petition the petitioner had contended that there existed no charges against which the petitioner could be repatriated although similar charges were levelled against one Sri Dinanath, who was absorbed in the department of Rural Engineering Services and later on was confirmed. It was submitted that the petitioner, who had a better record of services and the adverse entries which were awarded to him were also expunged, hence he deserves to be absorbed and confirmed in the Rural Engineering Department. No interim order was granted in the aforesaid writ petition, the Court observed that as the petitioner would have joined his parent department, but as a similarly situated person had been absorbed and confirmed the case of the petitioner also required consideration by the opposite parties. No interim order was granted in the aforesaid writ petition, the Court observed that as the petitioner would have joined his parent department, but as a similarly situated person had been absorbed and confirmed the case of the petitioner also required consideration by the opposite parties. Although the writ petition was dismissed on 26-10-1989, but the Court directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for confirmation and absorption in the Rural Engineering Services in the light of similarly situated person referred to above, who had been absorbed in the department within three months from the date of producing a certified copy of the order by the petitioner. 4. On 14th February, 1990 by means of an order one Sri Rahul Bhatnagar, Joint Secretary Gramya Vikas passed an order to the effect that his case for absorption in the Rural Engineering Services after consideration was rejected as he was not found fit for absorption. Besides the above sentence, the order did not indicate any reason as to why the petitioner was not found fit for absorption. The petitioner in the earlier writ petition had raised a grievance that although similarly situated person, namely, Sri Dinanath was absorbed and he was discriminated, it was incumbent upon the authority concerned to have considered how the case of the petitioner was different from the case of Dinanath, but nothing has been said in the order which shows that the authority which had passed the order dated 14-2-1990 did not apply his mind over the question involved in the case and in a most mechanical and casual manner the order was passed without any objective consideration of the matter. 5. The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the fact that after expunction of the adverse remarks entries were again received. Being aggrieved against such an action the petitioner filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal and on 26-12-1988 the Tribunal passed an order to the effect that the adverse entries would not be taken into account while considering the case of the petitioner for confirmation. Being aggrieved against such an action the petitioner filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal and on 26-12-1988 the Tribunal passed an order to the effect that the adverse entries would not be taken into account while considering the case of the petitioner for confirmation. It has been further submitted that Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Services by means of his letter addressed to Special Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh stated that after completion of inquiry by Technical Audit Cell he had sent his inquiry report and informed the Government that the charges of making false payments were not approved against the petitioner and the petitioner could not be charged for the alleged irregularities as there existed no evidence against him. He also informed that the Enquiry Officer Shri A.K. Garg had intimated, that he was not informed as to whether he was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and received no chargesheet to be served upon the petitioner. 6. Mr. Kapil Deo counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that as no chargesheet was issued to the petitioner, it cannot be presumed that any departmental inquiry was pending against him, hence only on that basis the question of absorption and confirmation of the petitioner cannot be withheld and in this regard he placed reliance upon the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V Jankiram (1991) 4 SCC 109 ;) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated as under (para 6) :- "It is only when a charge memo in disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. To deny promotion the disciplinary/criminal proceedings must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet already been issued to the employee. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. Further, if the charges are that serious the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a report to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. This finding of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is, therefore, acceptable." 7. Although it has been indicated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not absorbed and confirmed for the reason that he had earned several entries and he was also proceeded with in a departmental inquiry, but none of the two objections can be sustained; firstly; because the adverse entries were expunged, but when entries were revived again the Tribunal passed an order to the effect that those entries would not be taken into account while confirming the petitioner, secondly; it cannot be deemed that any inquiry was ever initiated against the petitioner as the petitioner, even according to the averments made in the counter affidavit was never served with any charge-sheet. The departmental proceedings would be deemed to have commenced from the date the chargesheet would have been issued to the petitioner, but nothing have been stated in the counter affidavit from which it could transpire that the charge-sheet was ever issued, Only this much has been said in the counter affidavit that the departmental inquiry was pending against the petitioner this is not the sufficient compliance of the "seal cover procedure", which is adopted in such cases hence it cannot be said that any departmental inquiry was pending against the petitioner. 8. The petitioner had staked his claim for absorption and confirmation on the basis that person, namely, Dinanath having much inferior record of service was absorbed and confirmed in the Rural Engineering Services while the petitioner was neither absorbed nor confirmed. 8. The petitioner had staked his claim for absorption and confirmation on the basis that person, namely, Dinanath having much inferior record of service was absorbed and confirmed in the Rural Engineering Services while the petitioner was neither absorbed nor confirmed. As no stay order was granted in the earlier writ petition and the petitioner had after being repatriated joined his parent department, the Court did not quash the order of repatriation but instead the Court had directed the opposite parties to consider his case for absorption and confirmation in the Rural Engineering Services in the light of similarly situated person, namely, Dinanath in the Rural Engineering Department, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of that order by the petitioner, but instead of considering his case only a cryptic order was passed by means of which the case of the petitioner for absorption and confirmation was rejected on the ground that he was not found fit. 9. As indicated above there existed nothing against the petitioner which warranted his repatriation to the parent department, particularly for the reason that a similarly situated person was absorbed and confirmed in the Rural Engineering Services. Although this Court generally does not interfere into the causes of repatriation, but administrative actions cannot escape the sweep of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present writ petition nothing has been averred on behalf of the State to indicate as to why the petitioner was differentiated in comparison to Mr. Dinanath. The order passed by the opposite parties, even when a direction was issued by this Court is not a speaking one. It does not indicate any reason and suffers from non application of mind; hence it cannot be sustained. 10. In the case of State of Mysore v. R. S. Kasi, (1985) 1 SLR 471 : ( AIR 1985 SC 651 ) Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled (para 3) "Apart from this in our view, the order of repatriation could be successfully challenged on the ground of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court did not go into that aspect of the matter because of its decision on the first point (mentioned above) urged before it. The High Court did not go into that aspect of the matter because of its decision on the first point (mentioned above) urged before it. Admittedly two officers namely Siddappa who was junior to the respondent and the respondent were ordered to be repatriated to the Department of Agriculture from the Department of Horticulture in spite of the fact that both were given option and they had exercised their option to continue in the Department of Horticulture and the ground for their repatriation was one and the same, namely, that both were trained in soil conservation and as such their service could be better utilised in the Department of Agriculture. But after this repatriation order was passed. Siddappa was allowed to continue in the department of Horticulture and was given successive promotions, though temporarily, in that Department. It is clear that after both had exercised their option to remain in the Department of Horticulture the two officers were similarly circumstanced but have been treated unequally and on this ground also the repatriation order is open to challenge. The precedent of Hon'ble Supreme Court fully applied to the facts of this writ petition." 11. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 14-2-1990 contained in Annexure 10 of this writ petition and the order dated 17-5-85 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition by means of which the petitioner was repatriated to the ground water investigation department. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption and confirmation, ignoring the adverse entries for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 as well as the alleged disciplinary proceedings; in the Rural Engineering Services Department, and pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner on the opposite parties. However, no order is made as to costs.