A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition was filed on 19th March, 1998. ( 2 ) ORDER sheet of the case shows that it is listed on several occasions intermittently and time was granted to the respondents to file counter-affidavit but, it appears, they have been better advised not to come up with their defence. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner is due to retire shortly and hence case be taken up. ( 4 ) MS. Madhu Singh and Sri R. K. Chaudhary, advocates, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not present but still Court proposes to decide the petition since no counter-affidavit has been filed and none is on record, as on date before the Court. ( 5 ) THE other reason to decide the case finally, without waiting the counsels for the respondent nos. 2 to 5, is that the Court proposes to decide the case on the basis of undisputed facts on record. ( 6 ) PETITIONER has filed several applications. ( 7 ) APPLICATION No. 27859 of 2001, Application No. 18380 of 2002, Application No. 27859 of 2001 and Application No. 24362 of 2001, all supported by the affidavit of the petitioner himself, were filed by the petitioner contending that he was exonerated from the criminal charge on 13. 3. 2001 and that the order of discharge was passed against him in a meeting wherein irregularities were committed and some other officers in respect of which averse order were passed as per decision in the same meeting were cancelled by the High Court and reinstated. ( 8 ) THE observations of the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 19. 2. 1998 in Special Appeal No. 53 (SB) of 1998 and other connected writ petitions (copy on record) are reproduced below : "in view of the facts stated above the matter is a serious one and in view of the counter claims made by the parties it appears that even the officers are divided into two groups. It is a very unfortunate spectacle that senior officers belonging to the highest service of the State and the country are involved in such type of--affairs. In these circumstances it appears that a serious and high level enquiry is urgently called for to safeguard the interests of cane growers as well as the institution. It is a very unfortunate spectacle that senior officers belonging to the highest service of the State and the country are involved in such type of--affairs. In these circumstances it appears that a serious and high level enquiry is urgently called for to safeguard the interests of cane growers as well as the institution. Apart from this it is also very unfortunate that before the Court the original register was produced in which no proceedings after 9. 6. 1997 were mentioned and the register was produced from the proper custody also. The counsel for the opposite parties who produced the register admitted and stated that there is no such resolution on record shown to have been passed on 28. 7. 1997. After sometime another counsel came forward and now it is alleged by some of the opposite parties that meeting took place and proceedings were also recorded on loose sheets but the same were not pasted due to non-avail ability of the original register till 20. 1. 1998, on which date the loose sheets were pasted in the new register. If such type of proceedings are accepted on their face value, then it is likely to eat into the judgment of this Court dated 29. 10. 1997. From the facts mentioned above it is evident that some foul play was played between the parties but at what and whose level the same has been done, we cannot say at this stage. The facts also show that they are not inclined to spare even the involvement of the High court and produced incomplete/forged papers before this Court. If this type of tendency is permitted and not curbed then it will be a sad day for the administration of Justice and it will not be possible to maintain the majesty of law. In these circumstances we direct that the original proceedings as well as the new proceedings register. as also the attendance register be sealed immediately and the same be handed over to the person who is to be authorised to conduct the enquiry. The Chief Secretary of the State of U. P. is directed to make a request to the C. B. I, to conduct a high level enquiry in this case within 10 days , from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Chief Secretary of the State of U. P. is directed to make a request to the C. B. I, to conduct a high level enquiry in this case within 10 days , from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is expected that looking into the seriousness of the matter the C. B. I. will constitute a high level enquiry in this regard and submit its report to this Court within two months. It goes without saying that enquiry would also of the non-official members and need not be constrained by our judgment, dated 29. 10. 1997 in W. P. No. 1102 of 1997. " ( 9 ) IN absence of the counter-affidavit in spite of more than adequate opportunity afforded by the court to the respondents, the facts pleaded in the writ petition remains unrebutted and the Court to accept the same particularly when there is no circumstances or material to urge the Court to disbelieve or suspect the correctness thereof and there is no option but to decide the case on the basis of the pleadings In the writ petition, and the uncontroverted affidavits of the petitioner on record. ( 10 ) PETITIONER contends that other main concerned officers, involved in similar matters and who stand on the same footing, were duly taken into service but he has been discriminated arbitrarily without furnishing any good cause. ( 11 ) AS a result thereof the Court the impugned order dated 14. 8. 1997/ Annexure-11 to the writ petition, is quashed. ( 12 ) THE Court, as the record stands, strongly feels that the petitioner, who is nearing age of superannuation, if deprived of his remedy prayed for in the writ petition, and the malicious ulteriour object/ motive of erring officers responsible for forging and fabricating documents (as noted in the special appeal judgment referred to above) is being served day by day and the Court will help those erring officials who are guilty of abusing their office. This cannot be approved as it will encourage an un-healthy practice at the behest of the respondents. ( 13 ) IT is a fit case wherein the erring officers should be taken to task and subjected to disciplinary enquiry and for this purpose, the Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. , Lucknow. This cannot be approved as it will encourage an un-healthy practice at the behest of the respondents. ( 13 ) IT is a fit case wherein the erring officers should be taken to task and subjected to disciplinary enquiry and for this purpose, the Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. , Lucknow. is directed to ensure such proper action as may be warranted under law within six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. ( 14 ) REGISTRAR of this Court is directed to ensure that certified copy of this judgment is sent to the chief Secretary. Government of U. P. , Lucknow, within four weeks from today. ( 15 ) RESPONDENTS are directed to reinstate the petitioner, pay his arrears treating him in service throughout ignoring the impugned order dated 14. 8. 1997, Annexure-11 to the writ petition along with 12% per annum simple interest from the date the amount being due and till it actually paid and further pay future salary month by month along with other officers giving benefit of all increments etc. and revised pay-scale as may have become due and available to the petitioner. ( 16 ) PETITION stands allowed with cost which I quantify at Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only ). Cost shall be realised in equal share from the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with the condition that this amount will be realised from their personal account. Cost shall be paid within one month of the receipt of the judgment by the concerned respondents. In case cost is not paid, the concerned District Magistrate shall realise it by issuing recovery certificate as arrears of land revenue and pay to the petitioner. Writ petition stands allowed subject to above observations and directions. .