JUDGMENT : D.S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Udai Narain Sinha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Sri K.R. Singh, learned special counsel representing the Respondents. 2. Inspite of time being granted, no counter affidavit has been filed. It appears that it is not necessary to wait for the counter affidavit from the Respondents as the petition can be disposed of finally upon the facts and circumstances stated in the petition itself. The Court, therefore, proceeds to dispose of the case finally, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, as envisaged by second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, 1952. 3. The Petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. An enquiry against his conduct as government servant was instituted, He gave his explanation on 19th August, 1991. From the perusal of letter dated 18th February, 1992, a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition, it appears that Inquiry Officer has completed the enquiry and submitted his report to the respondent No. 1 along with his letter dated 5th January, 1992. There is no material on record to show that the enquiry report has been either accepted or rejected. Final orders on the enquiry report are yet to be passed. In the meantime by means of an order dated 18th February, 1992, a copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the petition, the Petitioner has been suspended on the ground that against him departmental enquiry is pending. 4. The contention of Sri Sinha, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that after submission of the inquiry report the Petitioner could not be suspended, Sub-rule (1) of Rule 49-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, hereinafter called the 'Rules', provides that a Government servant against whole conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority. Under this rule a Government servant can be placed under suspension in either, of the two contingencies, namely, the contemplation of an inquiry against the conduct of the Government servant or proceeding of the inquiry against his conduct. Rule further envisages that such suspension may operate till the conclusion of the inquiry. 5. Under this rule a Government servant can be placed under suspension in either, of the two contingencies, namely, the contemplation of an inquiry against the conduct of the Government servant or proceeding of the inquiry against his conduct. Rule further envisages that such suspension may operate till the conclusion of the inquiry. 5. The question in the instant case is whether with the submission of the report by the Inquiry Officer to the Government, the inquiry instituted against the Petitioner can be said to have concluded. When the inquiry report against the conduct of a Government servant is submitted to the appointing authority, the appointing authority may accept the report and proceed to take further steps in pursuance thereof or may reject the report and order a fresh inquiry. Unless this is done the inquiry shall be deemed to be pending. The inquiry against the conduct of a Government servant, for the purpose of Rule 49-A of the Rules, will be deemed to have concluded only when a final and positive order is passed upon the submission of the inquiry report Indisputably, in the instant case no final order upon the submission of the inquiry report to the respondent No. 1 has been passed as yet. The Inquiry against the conduct of the Petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to have concluded. The contention of Sri Sinha is, therefore, rejected. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the order of suspension of the Petitioner ought to be interfered with. The Court, therefore, declines to do so. 7. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it does appear appropriate to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Pramukh Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation, Lucknow, the respondent No. 1, to pass a final order upon the inquiry report submitted against the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner before it and the Court orders accordingly. 8. Subject to the aforesaid observations and direction, this petition is disposed of finally.