JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.6.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No.7441/2008, titled Parshotam Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation, whereby the writ petition came to be allowed, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment” for short. 2. It appears that Parshotam Singh being the employee of the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation was driving a motor vehicle, which met with an accident on 4.7.1991. FIR No. 231/1991 in Police Station Nurpur was lodged against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Nurpur vide judgment dated 20.8.1997, was subject matter of appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1997, which too, was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.12.2000, upholding the judgment passed by the trial Magistrate. 3. It is averred that during the pendency of the criminal case, the appellant-corporation had initiated departmental inquiry against the writ petitioner/ respondent. The charge was framed and he was removed from service vide order dated 27.2.1997, which was subject matter of the writ petition before the Writ Court. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the removal order of the writ petitioner and respondents were directed to reinstate the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits. 4. It is not forthcoming from the impugned judgment whether the inquiry was quashed in its entirety or the impugned order dated 27.2.1997 only came to be quashed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant stated at the Bar that he would be satisfied in case, the appellant writ respondent is allowed to conduct inquiry against the writ petitioner/ respondent from the stage of framing charge. His statement is taken on record. 5. In view of the above peculiar circumstances, the impugned judgment is modified by providing that the appellant/competent authority is at liberty to conduct inquiry from the stage of framing the charge, which was read over to the writ petitioner/respondent herein, shall be concluded within six months from today. 6. Accordingly, the LPA is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. Dasti copy.