BINOD KUMAR ROY AND S. K. JAIN, JJ. ( 1 ) THREE-FOLD prayers have been made by the petitioner in this writ petition, who is an Assistant commissioner, Trade Tax, Varanasi, which has been placed for admission before us : (i) to quash his suspension order dated 5. 10. 2000 as contained in Annexure-1 by grant of a writ of certiorari ; (ii) to restrain the respondents from Interfering with his functioning ; and (iii) to command the respondents to expedite the contemplated enquiry expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. ( 2 ) THE impugned order shows, inter alia, that the petitioner has been suspended on account of three charges in relation to which there is proposal for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding at the command of His Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. ( 3 ) DR. Padia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended as follows : (i) The expression of the word ??? in the opening paragraph of the impugned order read with last part shows that it has really been passed by T. George Joseph, Principal Secretary, Tax and registration Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh whereas it ought to have been passed by the Governor after recording his satisfaction. In order to buttress this submission, Dr. Padia placed considerable reliance on a Full Bench decision of our own High Court in Jaswant sugar Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (III) U. P. , Allahabad and others, AIR 1962 All 240 . (ii) The reasons disclosed are factually Incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged acts who at that time was a Trade Tax Officer, who was also promoted subsequently. (iii) Alternatively, the contemplated disciplinary proceeding be directed to be initiated and concluded within a period of three months. ( 4 ) MR. K. S. Kushwaha, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, refuted the submissions as being not tenable on the very face of the order besides this Court at this stage may not like to go in the merits of the charges. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the Legal Glossary published by the Department of Law, Justice and Company affairs. Government of India, the word ??? means hereby. The impugned order has been passed at the command of His Excellency the Governor, whose satisfaction is implicit in it. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the Legal Glossary published by the Department of Law, Justice and Company affairs. Government of India, the word ??? means hereby. The impugned order has been passed at the command of His Excellency the Governor, whose satisfaction is implicit in it. Non-mentioning of the satisfaction, in our view, has not breached the requirements of Article 166 (3) as contended by Dr. Padia. The decision in Jaswant Sugar Mills was rendered in a different context and does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and thus, in our considered view, is of no help to the petitioner. Accordingly, the first submission made by him is not accepted. ( 6 ) THIS Court at this stage is not called upon to express itself in regard to merit of the charges specially when the departmental proceeding is under contemplation. If His Excellency the governor comes to a conclusion that it is a fit case in which departmental proceeding should be initiated, thereafter the petitioner will be served with the article of charges and at that stage, it will be open for him either to reply the charges and/or to move the High Court for quashing the disciplinary proceeding by taking valid grounds and satisfy this Court. Accordingly, we are not at all impressed by the second submission either. ( 7 ) NOW we come to the last submission of Dr. Padia. The order impugned shows that it was passed only on 5th October last month. Accordingly, we do not consider expedient in the interest of justice to issue at this stage any positive direction commanding the Government to initiate disciplinary proceeding and conclude it within three months period. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we dismiss this writ petition summarily. ( 9 ) LET a copy of this order be handed-over to Sri Kushwaha, learned standing counsel, by tomorrow for its intimation to the appropriate authority. .