JUDGMENT By the Court.—These three writ petitions relate to the subject-matter pertaining to a prayer made for an enquiry and conclusion of investigation by the U.P. Vigilance Establishment against Umesh Kumar Tripathi, the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow. 2. The other relief prayed for is to immediately transfer the said D.I.O.S. from Lucknow to some other non-sensitive post pending enquiry and investigation as his placement at Lucknow is likely to hamper the same and even otherwise once having been found in possession of disproportionate assets and facing allegations of corruption, there is a complete loss of confidence and public trust which should not be reposed in such an official for which reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and another v. Union of India and another, (2005) 8 SCC 202 and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 29592 of 2016, Akhil Bhartiya Manav Kalyan Evam Samojoththan and another v. State of U.P. and others, with special reference to the order dated 1-7-2016 passed therein and the final judgment dated 19-9-2016. The said orders are reported in 2016(7) ADJ 353 (DB). The petitioners’ counsel has also invited the attention of the Court to the judgment in the case of Mohan Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(4) ADJ 460 , to urge that this very D.I.O.S. had been subjected to an imposition of fine on account of his dereliction in duty while working as a D.I.O.S. in another district. 3. These three writ petitions were heard and a supplementary-affidavit was filed on 28.11.2016 by the petitioners whereupon the Court has called upon the learned Standing Counsel to inform the Court about the status of the enquiry against the Officer. The Court again had passed an order on 30.11.2016 to the following effect : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Tripathi for the State who has produced before us the written instructions tendered by Ram Narayan Ram, Inspector and duly countersigned by the Superintendent of Police of the Vigilance Department, Lucknow Sector, Lucknow. A perusal of said instructions only indicates that the enquiry is still progressing about which the information was made over to the Department way back on 21st of August, 2012. A perusal of said instructions only indicates that the enquiry is still progressing about which the information was made over to the Department way back on 21st of August, 2012. The instructions further states that there is no deliberate delay in concluding the enquiry and investigation. We had entertained this writ petition and we had called the learned Standing Counsel to inform the Court as to within what time would the investigation be concluded but till date no information has been given or tendered by the learned Standing Counsel nor any such averment is contained in the instructions that have been placed before the Court. This attitude of the Vigilance Department cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the enquiry/investigation was initiated way back in the year, 2012. There is no reason to believe that the enquiry and the investigation has been effectively carried out and there is every reason to presume that it has been delayed unnecessarily for the past four years. The Court, therefore, would hold responsible the concerned officials who have been entrusted with this task and in the event the enquiry and investigation is not concluded within six weeks from today, the Director, U.P. Vigilance Establishment-respondent No. 5 shall be personally present before this Court to explain the conduct of such officials through an affidavit as to why and in what manner has this investigation been scuttled and not concluded inspite of lapse of four years. The matter shall be listed immediately after expiry of six weeks on 5th of January, 2017.” 4. The matter remained pending and again an order was passed on 15.2.2017 to the following effect : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the State. We had sought instructions in the matter keeping in view the nature of the allegations made with regard to further processing the enquiry which has already been concluded. No information could be tendered and Shri Tripathi, expresses his inability to inform the Court about the same. In the aforesaid circumstances, either the concerned Secretary shall be present alongwith file before us on the next date fixed or file an affidavit indicating the status of the proceedings. Put up on 21.2.2017. Copy of the order be provided to the learned Standing Counsel today for being communicated.” 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, either the concerned Secretary shall be present alongwith file before us on the next date fixed or file an affidavit indicating the status of the proceedings. Put up on 21.2.2017. Copy of the order be provided to the learned Standing Counsel today for being communicated.” 5. The Directorate of Vigilance took it’s own time to submit a report to the State Government and the petitions were taken up on 21.2.2017 and again on 1.3.2017. The learned Additional Advocate General on 3.3.2017 was called upon to inform the Court about any further progress made in the matter, whereafter ultimately the Court had to pass the following order on 6.3.2017: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court on 30.11.2016 had called upon the respondents to proceed with the matter and had also expressed concern as to why steps had not been taken for processing the matter or recommending an investigation. The respondent - State filed an affidavit on 5.1.2017 and alongwith it, filed the letter of the Director addressed to the Principal Secretary, Vigilance Department dated 27.12.2016 stating therein that the open inquiry that had been contemplated under the demi-official letter of the Government dated 21.8.2012 has been carried out and upon a satisfaction in relation thereto, a recommendation was made to grant permission for launching a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the seventh respondent. Thereafter upon the directions of this Court, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government indicating the status of the said process wherein it had been indicated that the Director had been called upon to give a report on the representation filed by the respondent No. 7 where he had made a request that certain properties that had been mentioned for the purpose of the vigilance inquiry have been wrongly included and treated as his asset. The Director Vigilance had submitted his comments that has been taken notice of by us in the order dated 3.3.2017. Sri Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General had appeared on that date and had sought time to inform the Court about the status of the processing of the file before the concerned department keeping in view the letter, which had been sent dated 2.3.2017. Sri Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General had appeared on that date and had sought time to inform the Court about the status of the processing of the file before the concerned department keeping in view the letter, which had been sent dated 2.3.2017. Today, Sri Zilani, has placed before the Court the letter dated 3.3.2017 addressed to the learned Additional Advocate General informing him that the entire file has been placed before the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. as the same requires the approval of the Chief Minister of the State. For this, Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is no such requirement that the matter should be placed before the Chief Minister inasmuch as the Secretary of the Department being the Head of Department is the concerned authority and in view of the Government Order dated 29.8.2017 relied upon by the respondents themselves, this exercise ought to have been undertaken and completed for granting permission to launch the prosecution against the respondent No. 7. He has also relied on the judgment in the case of Union of India and another v. W.N. Chadha; 1993 Supp(4) SCC 260, to substantiate his submissions. To the aforesaid contention, the response of the learned Additional Advocate General is that in view of the memorandum dated 8.12.2014 issued under Rule 3 of the U.P. Rules of Business 1975, the arrangement of disposal of business specifies that in such matters, the approval of the Chief Minister is required and the Chief Minister being the Head of the Vigilance Department is also the Minister In-Charge, as such, according to the Rules of Business, the same has to be disposed of with the permission of the Chief Minister. Sri Mehrotra, however, disputes this proposition contending that this was not required at all and it is the responsibility of the departmental secretary to proceed with the matter for which the case is not required to be submitted before the Chief Minister for permission. We have considered the submissions raised and we have also heard Dr. L. P. Mishra, who has appeared for the respondent No. 7. We are satisfied that the State Government has proceeded with the matter and the file has already reached the Chief Secretary. We have considered the submissions raised and we have also heard Dr. L. P. Mishra, who has appeared for the respondent No. 7. We are satisfied that the State Government has proceeded with the matter and the file has already reached the Chief Secretary. From the memorandum dated 8.12.2014, that has been produced before us, we find that keeping in view the provisions of the U.P. Business Rule, 1975 the aforesaid proposal has to be vetted and then approved by the Chief Minister. Consequently, the Chief Secretary before whom the filing is pending is directed to obtain necessary orders from the Chief Minister and inform the Court by the next date fixed. Dr. L.P. Mishra learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 prays for time to file an affidavit on behalf of the seventh respondent. The same may be filed by the next date fixed. Let the matter come up on 21.3.2017.” 6. Inspite of these directions, no information was being tendered about any conclusive action being taken as a result whereof in these compelling circumstances on 11.4.2017 the Court directed the Chief Secretary to either respond to the order dated 6.3.2017 or else the Court would be constrained to summon the officials personally. 7. It is in this background that the communication dated 14.4.2017 was placed before the Court as recorded in our order dated 17.4.2017. 7. It is in this background that the communication dated 14.4.2017 was placed before the Court as recorded in our order dated 17.4.2017. The communication made by the concerned Secretary of the Government to the learned Chief Standing Counsel is as follows : ^^la[;k&334@39&4&2017&fjV¼25½@16 isz"kd] ;rhUnz dqekj] vuq lfpo] m0iz0 'kkluA lsok esa] eq[; LFkk;h vf/koDrk] mPp U;k;ky;] [k.MihB y[kuÅA lrdZrk vuqHkkx&4 y[kuÅ% fnukad % 14] viSzy] 2017 fo"k;& ;kfpdk la0&26932¼,e@ch½@2016 us'kuy ,lksfl,'ku QkWj osyQs;j vkQ ;wFk cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; ds lEca/k esaA egksn;] d`i;k mi;ZqDRk fo"k;d lrdZrk vuqHkkx&4 ds i= la[;k& 247@39&4&2017&fjV¼25½@16 fnukad 21-2-2017 o lela[;d i= fnukad 23-2-2017] 2-3-2017] 3-3-2017 o la[;k&334@39&4&2015&fjV¼25½@16 fnukad 20-03-2017 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA 2& bl lEca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd iz'uxr ;kfpdk la0&26932¼,e@ch½ @2016 us'kuy ,lksfl,'ku QkWj osyQs;j vkQ ;wFk cuke m0 iz0 jkT; o vU; ds lUnHkZ esa Jh mes'k dqekj f=ikBh] ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] y[kuÅ ds fOk:} ifjlEifRRk fo"k;d vkjksi ij Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh èkkjk&13¼1½bZ lifBr /kkjk&13¼2½ ds vUrxZr vfHk;ksx iathd`r djkdj foospuk djk;s tkus ds vkns'k funs'kd] m0 iz0 lrdZrk vf/k"Bku] y[kuÅ dks 'kklu }kjk fnukad 14-4-2017 dks ns fn;s x;s gSaA 3& vr% vuqjks/k gS fd d`i;k ek0 U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 6-3-2017 rFkk 11-4-2017 ds vuqikyu esa mi;ZqDRk oLrqfLFkfr ls fnukad 17-4-2017 dks lquokbZ ds le; ek0 U;k;ky; dks voxr djkus dk d"V djsaA Hkonh;] gLrk{kj ¼;rhUnz dqekj½ vuq lfpoA la[;k&334¼1½@39&4&2017 rfnukad& d`i;k mDr dh izfrfyfi Jh ,l0ih0 f=ikBh] LFkk;h vf/koDrk] mPPk U;k;ky;] [k.MihB y[kuÅ dks bl vuqjks/k ds lkFk iszf"kr fd os d`i;k iz'uxr dsl dh lquokbZ fnukad 17-4-2017 dks oLrqfLFkfr ls ek0 U;k;ky; dks voxr djkus dk d"V djsaA vkKk lsa] ¼;rhUnz dqekj½ vuq lfpoA^^ 8. Sri Anupam Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if now directions have been given for registering of the case as indicated above, yet the second relief of the petitioners has not been considered so far and the said person continues to hold the sensitive post of the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow. He therefore submits that this relief survives and the petitions deserve to be disposed of with appropriate directions to that effect. 9. Dr. He therefore submits that this relief survives and the petitions deserve to be disposed of with appropriate directions to that effect. 9. Dr. L.P. Mishra has filed a detailed affidavit on behalf of the Officer Sri Umesh Kumar Tripathi in Writ Petition No. 26932 (MB) of 2016 and has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of all the three writ petitions as not being bona fide or in public interest. He submits that the personal grudge of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 20495 (MB) of 2016 had led to the filing of these writ petitions one after the other which are proxy petitions and have been tailored with a view to somehow or the other rope in the officer on the basis of absolutely false and incorrect allegations about possessing disproportionate assets and allegations of corruption. He submits that these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed outright, and a writ petition pertaining to service conditions of the answering respondent in the shape of a Public interest Litigation particularly with regard to his transfer and posting is not maintainable. He therefore submits that these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and the petitions do not deserve to be entertained at all. 10. Sri Misra has invited the attention of the Court to the detailed affidavit filed in defence by the officer concerned also offering his explanation that the entire communication with regard to setting up of a vigilance enquiry is against the procedure prescribed in law and is also without taking into account to any explanation submitted by the answering respondent before the Vigilance Department. He submits that every explanation indicating the status of the property of the answering respondent or about his family members was clearly explained that does not make out any case for enquiry or investigation and therefore the registration of the F.I.R., as now sought to be resorted to, is also unlawful. He submits that the answering respondent is being made a victim of the personal grudge and vengeance of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 20495 (MB) of 2016 against whom orders had been passed by the answering respondent pertaining to the mismanagement of the institution. It is therefore contended that the writ petitions do not deserve to be entertained. 11. He submits that the answering respondent is being made a victim of the personal grudge and vengeance of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 20495 (MB) of 2016 against whom orders had been passed by the answering respondent pertaining to the mismanagement of the institution. It is therefore contended that the writ petitions do not deserve to be entertained. 11. Sri S. P. Tripathi, learned learned Standing Counsel representing the State has however said that the matter has now become absolutely infructuous in view of the communication dated 14.4.2017 referred to here-in-above and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Further, he submits that so far as the transfer and posting of the officer is concerned, the same is a matter of consideration for the State Government for which no directions are required. 12. We have considered the submissions raised and in view of the development of the fact that the State Government itself has now proceeded to issue orders for registering a case against the concerned officer after the vigilance enquiry, the relief sought in all the writ petitions does not require any further adjudication. The steps taken by the State Government therefore do not warrant any further orders from the Court at this stage. 13. The question of maintainability of the writ petition and it’s being maintained therefore also looses it’s relevance as the Government itself has proceeded in the matter. 14. The contention of Sri Anupam Mehrotra about the respondent-Officer being posted at Lucknow, suffice it to say that if the same is pending consideration before the State Government, it is expected that the State Government in view of these developments would be taking appropriate steps for doing the needful. 15. Consequently, subject to the observations above, all the writ petitions stand disposed off finally without prejudice to the rights of the respondent-Officer to contest and defend himself before any appropriate forum in respect of the action, stated to have been taken against him and intimated to this Court and recorded here-in-above. The disposal of these three writ petitions therefore would not be any impediment to the rights of the said officer from raising any plea in accordance with law which he may propose to take in future, and the State Government shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in respect of his posting or transfer as per law.