Order After hearing the counsel for the parties, both the writ petition and I.A. are disposed of by passing the following order. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that though the order of suspension was served upon him on 27th June, 95 even then as yet no departmental proceeding has been initiated. 3. With this grievance the petitioner came before this court previously by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6713/1998, and the same was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on 23rd September, 1998. While disposing of the said writ petition, the learned Judge expressed displeasure about the manner in which suspension has been kept pending without initiating any departmental proceeding and ultimately the writ petition and I.A. were disposed of by passing the following direction : "This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner must be initiated and concluded by 31.1.1999. In case final orders are not passed by that date, it will be open to the petitioners to move this Court for revocation of their suspension. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Road Construction Department, Nirman Bhawan, Patna and this order be brought to his notice." 4. The learned Judge in the concluding portion of the order made it clear that this order be brought to the notice of the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department. Even then no effective steps have been taken, and today admitted position is that even charge-sheet was not served on the petitioner by 31st January, 1999. Therefore, there is no question of conclusion of the said departmental proceeding. This shows total inaction in the concerned department of the State Government. 5. This Court fails to understand why the Government takes about four years time to frame charge-sheet and serve it on the employee, when the suspension order was passed in the month of June, 1995 and for all these years the employee has to be paid his subsistence allowance. It seems that the authorities are not at all conscious of their duties and responsibilities. This is an instance of gross abuse of their powers. 6. Today learned counsel for the respondent submits without filing any affidavit that the charge is ready and the same is going to be served on the petitioner. It seems that the authorities are not at all conscious of their duties and responsibilities. This is an instance of gross abuse of their powers. 6. Today learned counsel for the respondent submits without filing any affidavit that the charge is ready and the same is going to be served on the petitioner. But this submission is made contrary to the direction contained in the order dated-23rd September, 1998 which have been quoted above. Due sanctity must be attached to the Court's order. Since the Court has given liberty to the petitioner to move for revocation of the suspension order if the proceedings are not concluded by a particular date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 3rd February, 1999. 7. Therefore, this Court quashes the suspension order. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that charges are serious. Assuming that the charges are serious, but it appears that respondents are not serious in initiating any proceeding on the same. However, this Court does not quash the charges. The Departmental proceeding may continue in accordance with law, but the same should be concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of the charge-sheet upon the petitioner. The petitioner must cooperate with the authorities in the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. If he does not co-operate, the proceeding may proceed exparte against the petitioner. 8. The subsistence allowance during the period of suspension should be paid to the petitioner. Both the writ petition and the I.A. are thus disposed of.