JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) Petitioners have prayed mainly for the following relief:- “(i) That a writ of certiorari may very kindly be issued and impugned inquiry and show cause notice as contained in Annexure P-11 and Annexure P-12 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. Annexure P-11 is the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer in relation to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Annexure P-12 is the show cause notice dated 15.5.2012 issued by the respondents, calling upon the petitioners to furnish their response as to why increments (ten years) be not stopped. 3. Operation of these orders was stayed by the learned vacation Judge on 7.6.2012, which order is reproduced in toto as under:- “CMP No.6239/2012 Notice, in the aforesaid terms. Earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No.3309 of 2012-A. The same was disposed by this Court on 08.05.2012. The operative portion of the judgment dated 08.05.2012 reads thus: “2. The petitioners pray for an opportunity to make a detailed representation before the 2nd respondent. It is always open for the petitioners to do so. In the event of petitioners filing representations within one week from today, the same will be considered by the 2nd respondent and speaking order thereon will be passed within another 10 days.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of the judgment dated 08.05.2012 was received by the petitioner on 14th May, 2012 itself and in these circumstances, it was impossible for him to make a representation to the 2nd respondent. However, the fact of the matter is that without permitting the petitioner to make a representation, the impugned notice dated 15th May, 2012 has been issued. In view of this, the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case in his favour. Accordingly, the operation of Annexure P-12, dated 15th May, 2012 is stayed, till further orders. Copy dasti, on usual terms.” 4. Noticeably, what weighed with the Court in staying the operation of the impugned order was the fact that earlier order dated 8.5.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No.3309/2012 was not complied with by the respondents. But decision on his explanation may not be necessary as he has to respond to the show cause notice. 5. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that Annexure P-12 is only a show cause notice. But decision on his explanation may not be necessary as he has to respond to the show cause notice. 5. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that Annexure P-12 is only a show cause notice. Respondents in their reply-affidavit dated 4.9.2012 have also stated thus:- “6. That the replying respondent has taken the cognizance of the matter. Since the mandatory provision of calling the representation after conclusion of the enquiry has not been followed the show cause notice issued by the respondent No.4 and passing the punishment order without waiting for the reply to show cause notice is against the rules and principles of natural justice. However, keeping in view the negligence which amounts to misconduct the petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot free for the technical flaws. 7. That in view of the above de novo enquiry is to be started against the petitioner and co delinquent from the stage of calling the representation against enquiry with the leave of this Hon’ble Court.” 6. In view of the categorical stand taken by the State, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, by affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the present petitioners, within a period of six months from today. Needless to add, parties shall fully cooperate. All questions of law raised in the present petitions are left open. The disciplinary proceedings shall positively be completed within a period of six months. With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand disposed of, so also, pending application(s), if any.