Order Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has retired since long, but, he is not getting any retirement benefits, nay even provisional pension. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that an enquiry has been initated against the petitioner and is pending since November, 2007. 2. It ought to have been kept in mind by respondent no. 2 that once the charge-sheet is issued and enquiry has been started, it ought to have been ended with an order without any loss of time because pendency of an enquiry has a direct nexus with several aspects of the services like promotion, payment of retirement benefits etc. Such a simple jurisprudence of service has been lost sight of by respondent no. 2. Copy of the petition was served in August, 2008. Nothing has been done, so far, by respondent no. 2, nor by his appointee i.e. Enquiry Officer. Thoroughly lethargic, callous and casual is the approach on the part of the respondents' officers as well as on the part of the Enquiry Officer. 3. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delinquent is not a beggar before the Enquiry Officer. No step has been taken even to pay even provisional amount of pension and it is difficult now-a-days to survive in absence of salary, without even provisional pension amount. 4. Mr. Promod Kumar Gupta S/o late Sumeer Chandra Gupta, who is an Enquiry Officer, is present in this Court, stated that he has recently completed one more enquiry, which was also pending since more than twelve months period. In the present case also, from 2007 onwards, enquiry is going on and the petitioner is not getting any retirement benefits. Respondent No. 2 ought to have kept in mind that an efficient arid vigilant Enquiry Officer ought to have been appointed and not lethargic one because pendency of enquiry has far reaching consequences in the service period of a salaried man. A lethargic officer should never be appointed as an Enquiry Officer otherwise, Enquiry Officer shall have to face an enquiry. There is no stay against the completion of the enquiry, still for the reasons best known to the Enquiry Officer, he has not yet completed the enquiry. This aspect of the matter ought to have been kept in mind by respondent no. 2. 5. There is no stay against the completion of the enquiry, still for the reasons best known to the Enquiry Officer, he has not yet completed the enquiry. This aspect of the matter ought to have been kept in mind by respondent no. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that now, an affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that within three months, the enquiry will be completed, but, they are ready, even to complete the enquiry within three weeks, if, there is full cooperation from the petitioner and if he will not ask for unnecessary adjournment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that no unnecessary adjournment will be asked by the petitioner and he will co-operate in the enquiry, fully, so that the same may be completed within the stipulated time, which may be given by this Court and the petitioner may get retirement benefits which have been withheld by the respondents unauthorisedly. 7. In view of these submissions and despite the lethargic approach of the Enquiry Officer, who has waited unnecessarily, right from November, 2007 onwards. though there is no stay against the completion of the enquiry, looking to the affidavit filed in this writ petition and looking to the further reduction of time in completing the enquiry, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, upon instructions from his client, I hereby. direct the respondents to complete the pending enquiry against the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from today, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and enforceable Government orders, applicable to the petitioner and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 8. Post this matter on 12th October, 2009.