A. K. YOG, J. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Jain, advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Hanuman Upadhaya, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, has been filed by Ali Abbas Abdi, petitioner, challenging order of termination dated 14-11-84 passed by the District Magistrate, Mirapur, com municated vide letter dated November 17, 1984, (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) passed by Assistant Records Officer, Robertsganj, Mirapur. 3. When writ petition was filed ad interim order dated 13-12-84 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court. It reads: "learned Standing Counsel may file a counter-affidavit within three weeks. I there after. Meanwhile until further orders of this Court the operation of the impugned order of dismissal dated 14-11-84 as communicated to the petitioner through Annexure 10 to the writ petition dated 17th November, 1984 shall remain stayed. " 4. Respondents application for vacating the stay order was rejected by learned Single Judge vide order dated Sep tember 27, 1995. It reads: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel. After going through the materials on record I do not find any justification for vacating the interim order passed in the matter so, the interim order dated 13-12-84 is hereby con firmed. The stay vacating application is accord ingly rejected. Since the matter is a very old one, the writ petition requires to be disposed of expeditiously. " 5. Briefly stated undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Assistance Record Keeper in the record office, Mirzapur, was suspended and charge-sheeted. Notice was given on 23rd October, 1972. 6. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and petitioner was charged of certain addi tional charges. The Enquiry Officer sub mitted report dated May 23rd, 1973. An 172 order of dismissal was passed on 18th June, 1973. Petitioner file departmental appeal, which have also been dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved claim petition (Claim No. 348 (1) 1917. Ali Abbas Abdi v. State Government and others) challenging order of dismissal dated 18th June, 1973 as well as appellate order October 25, 1975 was filed and the same, after hearing the parties, was allowed vide judgment and order dated 28-10- 1980. 7. Feeling aggrieved claim petition (Claim No. 348 (1) 1917. Ali Abbas Abdi v. State Government and others) challenging order of dismissal dated 18th June, 1973 as well as appellate order October 25, 1975 was filed and the same, after hearing the parties, was allowed vide judgment and order dated 28-10- 1980. The Tribunal declared departmental proceedings against the petitioner and the order of dismissal dated 18th June, 1973 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and appel late order dated 25-10-75 illegal. While Tribunal quashed the same, it, however, observed that "the department shall be at liberty to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner afresh after giving him proper opportunity for defence according to law, if consider necessary. " 8. As consequence of quashing of dis missal order dated 18th June, 1973 and the department having denied the same, petitioner was compelled to file Execution Case No. 3 of 1983 before District Judge, which subsequently came to the Addition al District Judge. Petitioner has filed several documents pertaining to the ex ecution proceedings. Judgment and order dated 3-11 -83 (Annexure 3 to the petition) passed by learned Vth Additional District Judge, Mirzapur, shows that Execution Court held that once dismissal order was quashed, employee was entitled to get his service and all the emoluments relating to period in which he was out of service and objection of the judgment-debtor did not find with reference Court and same were dismissed. Petitioner has filed copy of Ex ecution Court order dated 5- 12-83, (An nexure 4 to the petition) and copy of order dated 25th July, 1984 passed by High Court Allahabad dismissing Civil Revision No. 446 of 1984 and affirming the order dated 25-5-1984 passed by Execut ing Court rejecting the objection of the judgment-debtor. This order of High Court contains reference to the fact that petitioner was not paid his salary from 1972 and also made observation that noth ing was shown to the satisfaction of the Court that there was anything to hamper initiation of departmental enquiry in pur suance to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 28-10-1980. Petitioner has filed copies of the applications and objection filed by him and the department in the execution case. (Annexures 6, 7 and 8 to the petition ). 9. Petitioner has filed copies of the applications and objection filed by him and the department in the execution case. (Annexures 6, 7 and 8 to the petition ). 9. Perusal of these objections filed by the department clearly shows that there was a tacit approach to frustrate the execu tive proceedings on one ground or the other. It appears from the perusal of these documents that no departmental proceed ings were initiated in pursuance of the order of Tribunal and second show-cause notice is said to have been issued only when department felt concerned and to find an excuse to escape the liability of making payment under Execution proceedings. In application dated 16-8-1984 (Annexure 7) filed on behalf of the department in Execution Case for the first time a reference was made that second show-cause notice was issued 16th August, 1984. In the said objection, department prayed for one month time to pay decrial amount. Curiously enough again an Ap plication dated 21st August, 1984 was filed by the department in the Execution Court and therein it was indicated for the first time that said second show-notice was sent by registered post to the petitioner on 16th August, 1984 itself. The objections filed by decree holder in the Execution Court shows that issuance of the said show-cause notice was only in order to forge a false pretext to forestall execution proceedings, copy of the said second show-cause notice has been filed as Annexure 8 to the peti tion. A perusal of the said notice shows that it has referred to and relied upon earlier Enquiry Officers report dated 23rd May, 1973 itself which was the subject-matter prior to the passing of the judg ment and order dated 28-10- 1980 passed by Tribunal (Annexure 1 to the petition ). This shows that show-cause notice was clearly issue violation of the direction given by Tribunal to initiate departmental enquiry a fresh after giving appropriate opportunity. 10. In Para 28 of the writ petition, it has categorically asserted that dismissal order of 14th November, 1984 as com municated vide order 17th November, 1984 (Annexure 10 to the petition) is ab solutely without jurisdiction as no fresh departmental proceedings were held nor any opportunity was provided to the petitioner. The said paragraph has been replied vide Para 24 of the counter-af fidavit. The said paragraph has been replied vide Para 24 of the counter-af fidavit. Reference is being made to the order of dismissal dated 14th November, 1984 but copy of the same has not been annexed. It is also not mentioned that said order was ever issued or communicated to the petitioner. Moreover, in the said para there is no averment, much less a categori cal assertion, that an enquiry was held and petitioner was afforded opportunity and if so in what manner and when. The said Paragraph 24 to the counter-affidavit merely refers and asserts the facts pertain ing to the order of Tribunal. 11. In view of the above unrequited facts, no departmental enquiry was in itiated afresh and petitioner was not af forded opportunity to defend, as directed by Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 28- 10-98, Annexure 1 to the peti tion. The impugned order contained in letter dated 17th November, 1984 (An nexure 10 to the petition) cannot be sus tained and is liable to be set aside. 12. The order contained in the letter dated 17th November, 1984 passed by Assistant Record Officer addressed to the petitioner referring to the order of District Magistrate, Mirzapur dated 14th Novem ber, 1984, which has not been seen in the light of day as yet, this order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed. .