JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner had been performing and discharging his duties as Office Assistant-II. Petitioner has contended that genesis of the entire controversy lies in an altercation which took place on 18th November, 2006 between the petitioner and Sri K.L. Sharma, Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Mathura Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Mathura respondent No. 5. Petitioner has contended that he made complaint in writing on 22nd November, 2006 before Deputy General Manger qua insult metted to him and threat was extended to him and copy of complaint was also forwarded to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura. Petitioner has contended that as a consequence of such complaint respondent No. 5 got highly infuriated and issued orders for withholding his salary. Petitioner submits that he met Sri K.L. Sharma, Executive Engineer who started abusing and threatening him and he was helped by respondent No. 6 and petitioner seriously perturbed by the conduct of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 again approached the Deputy General Manager on 22nd January, 2007. Petitioner has submitted that complaints which were made did not meet any fate rather same proved to be counter productive and he was transferred on 31st January, 2007. Petitioner thereafter submits that thereafter he has been placed under suspension on 2nd February, 2007. Petitioner submits that he thereafter filed an appeal against the order of transfer. Petitioner submits that he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20120 of 2007. Said writ petition has been decided on 17th May, 2007 by means of following order : “Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranjeet Saxena appearing for the respondents. A supplementary affidavit has been filed along with which the petitioner has filed copy of the suspension order dated 2nd February, 2007. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 2nd February, 2007 and the transfer order dated 31st January, 2007. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on the allegation that on 30th January, 2007 in the Revenue Camp he has abused the Executive Officer and slapped. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order, contended that no inquiry is contemplated and the suspension has been ordered merely on allegation. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The suspension has been ordered on allegation, which is of serious nature. The order itself shows that the respondents are satisfied that this is a case of disciplinary proceeding. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The suspension has been ordered on allegation, which is of serious nature. The order itself shows that the respondents are satisfied that this is a case of disciplinary proceeding. From the order, it is clear that decision has already been taken to hold disciplinary enquiry, hence the submission of the petitioner’s Counsel that no inquiry is contemplated is not correct. Further the submission of the petitioner that it is merely on allegation may be a defence of the petitioner which can be gone into and inquired in the inquiry. At this stage on the above submission no fault can be found with the suspension order. By order dated 31st January, 2007 the petitioner was transferred to another division. There is no error in the above order as it has been passed on administrative ground and the same cannot be interfered with. It is however, observed that disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner shall be expeditiously concluded preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. 2. After said judgment has been delivered by the order dated 06.2007 has been passed by Managing Director, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vittran Nigam Ltd. Agra appointing the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vittran Nigam Ltd. Lal Diggi Aligarh, respondent No. 3 as Inquiry Officer and directing that entire enquiry proceedings be concluded 8.2007. Petitioner submits that thereafter charge-sheet has been sent through Speed Post to the petitioner which has been received. Petitioner submits that issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner is an act of high handed nature; same is without jurisdiction and tainted with mala fides of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Petitioner submits that charge-sheet can be issued either by the appointing authority or by the Enquiry Officer, and charge-sheet has been issued under the authority of the following officers : (i) Sub Divisional Officer, Mathura (ii) Superintending Engineer, Mathura (iii) Executive Engineer, Vrindavan (iv) Enquiry Officer, Aligarh which is unjustifiable. Petitioner has contended that specific complaint was lodged against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and said respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has put their signature and further petitioner submits that sequence of events clearly demonstrate that charge-sheet has been issued at the behest of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the petitioner. Petitioner has contended that specific complaint was lodged against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and said respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has put their signature and further petitioner submits that sequence of events clearly demonstrate that charge-sheet has been issued at the behest of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the petitioner. Petitioner has also contended that he was lastly posted at district Mathura and disciplinary proceedings has not been initiated at district Banda. Where the petitioner has been attached, and the respondents cannot be permitted to conduct enquiry at a third place at Aligarh. 3. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that sequence of events clearly reflects mala fide initiation of the proceedings as such proceedings cannot be permitted to go on, as such charge-sheet in question is liable to be quashed and further petitioner is entitled to function on the post of Office Assistant II and paid salary as well as arrears of salary from December, 2006. 4. Sri J.P. Pandey, Advocate, on the other hand contended that suspension and transfer order has already been upheld by this Court and present writ petition is nothing but devise to delay the said proceedings by all means fair and foul. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case is that petitioner was sought to be transferred on 31.1.2007 and thereafter petitioner has been sought to be placed under suspension on 2 February, 2007 on the allegation that on 30th January, 2007 in the Revenue Camp he has abused the Executive Engineer and slapped. Transfer order and suspension order has already been upheld by this Court as such collateral challenge qua the same cannot be permitted to be raised by any counts. This Court while dismissing the writ petition on 17th April, 2007 has given categorical direction that disciplinary inquiry be concluded preferably within period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. This Court while dismissing the writ petition on 17th April, 2007 has given categorical direction that disciplinary inquiry be concluded preferably within period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. On 12th June, 2007 giving background of the case including filing of the writ petition and the time frame which was provided therein the Managing Director, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Agra, respondent No. 2 appointed Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Lal Diggi Aligarh, respondent No. 3 as Inquiry Officer and further aforesaid authority has been authorized to get charge-sheet prepared at his own level and thereafter submit report so that the matter be placed before disciplinary authority i.e. Superintending Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Banda who will take decision on the basis of Inquiry Report. Sri B.S. Gangwar, Executive Engineer, who has been appointed as Inquiry Officer against him no allegation of malafide has been made, Inquiry in question has been entrusted to independent authority qua whom there is no plea of malafide alleged and it is expected that Inquiry Officer would carry out the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of evidence so adduced in the disciplinary proceedings and submit his report according and thereafter based on the same Disciplinary Authority at Banda would take decision. Qua the Disciplinary Authority also there is no plea of malafide alleged. 6. Much capital has been sought to be made on the fact that charge-sheet in question has been signed by (i) Sub-Divisional Officer, Mathura (ii) Superintending Engineer, Mathura (iii) Executive Engineer, Vrindavan (iv) Enquiry Officer, Aligarh. Merely because these incumbents have signed, the charge-sheet in question cannot be vitiated, inasmuch as charge-sheet in question has been directed to be got prepared by Inquiry Officer and thereafter inquiry to be undertaken. Inquiry has to be conducted by independent authority name Sri B.S. Gangwar, Executive Engineer at Aligarh. The other three signatories are not conducted enquiry, as such they are not at all the judge of their own case. Much emphasis has been placed on the fact that mind had already been expressed and enquiry would be farce. In the present case as far as Inquiry Officer is concerned till date he has not expressed any opinion in the case and charge-sheet is prima facie opinion would be formed after inquiry is conducted on the basis of evidence adduced. Much emphasis has been placed on the fact that mind had already been expressed and enquiry would be farce. In the present case as far as Inquiry Officer is concerned till date he has not expressed any opinion in the case and charge-sheet is prima facie opinion would be formed after inquiry is conducted on the basis of evidence adduced. As far as other incumbents who have signed on the charge-sheet are concerned they are not at all acting as Inquiry Officer in the present case, and in case they are acting as Inquiry Officer then Chairman is the competent authority to replace them and hand over to other incumbent. This is not at all case of the petitioner that incumbent qua whom mala fide has been alleged are acting as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry in question is to be conducted at Aligarh and not at Mathura and that too by independent incumbent. Petitioner holds transferable post and can be posted anywhere in the State of U.P. in this background enquiry can also be undertaken at any place. 7. Much reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Deepak Puri v. State of Haryana and others, 2000 (10) SCC 373 . In the said case itself it has been mentioned that this Court generally does not entertain any petition or appeal at the interlocutory stage of the disciplinary proceeding. Further enquiry even after six years has been directed to be undertaken after supply of documents. Here in the present case charge-sheet has been merely served and unnecessarily apprehension are being raised by the petitioner that arbitrary treatment would be given to him in the on going inquiry. 8. Much reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case of Yadavindra Public School Association v. State of Punjab and others, 1999 (1) SCC 189 . In the present case, plea of mala fide has been alleged against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who are not at all acting as Enquiry Officer, as such said judgment will not at all come to the rescue of the petitioner, and is totally out of context. 9. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case of Kamaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and others, 2001 (1) SCC 182 and State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and others, 2001(2) SCC 330 . 9. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case of Kamaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and others, 2001 (1) SCC 182 and State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and others, 2001(2) SCC 330 . Both these cases will also not come to the rescue of the petitioner, inasmuch as in the case of Kamaon Mandal, Vikas Nigam Ltd. (supra), Managing Director admittedly withdrew the financial power from the incumbent appointed Inquiry Officer thereafter heard the matter in the takeafternoon and early evening passed order of termination in this background bias was held to be proved. Here enquiry is yet to commence, with no allegation of malafides alleged against Managing Director, Disciplinary Authority and Enquiry Officer. In the case of State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna (supra) it has been held that justifiably of disciplinary proceedings cannot be possible be delved into by any Court pending enquiry, but in the event of mala fide and malice involved the enquiry would be farce. In the said case with the change of Government, proceedings were undertaken, and even before reply has been submitted Chief Minister made a statement that High Court Judge would make enquiry and thus, mindset had been shown. Here in the present case authority has charge-sheet has been issued inquiry proceedings would be undertaken by independent incumbent and as against Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority there is nothing in this background plea of mala fide, and malice is neither here and there. 10. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. ————