JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of enquiry report dated 05.05.2015 as well as order of suspension dated 19.05.2014 by which the petitioner was attached to the office of Munsiff (JMIC), Kathua. The petitioner also seeks quashment of the charge-sheet as well as communication dated 19.11.2014 addressed by Assistant Registrar, High Court of J&K to respondent No.4. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to release the subsistence allowance in favour of the petitioner @ 75% w.e.f. December, 2014 onwards. In order to appreciate the petitioner’s grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra. 3. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Junior Assistant in the office of 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Jammu for a period from 27.01.2010 to 04.09.2011. On the directions of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, a preliminary enquiry initiated and was conducted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu into the incident with regard to alleged tampering with the plaint, stay application dated 24.12.2010, application for amendment of plaint, decree dated 09.09.2011 as well as mutilation of the statement dated 07.06.2011 of the plaintiff, changing the measurement of the suit land and substituting the judgment dated 09.09.2011 by another judgment in civil suit titled “Soba Ram v. Ram Pal”, which was decreed ex-parte on 09.09.2011. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, a decision was taken to initiate regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was thereupon served with a copy of memorandum of charges and was asked to submit his written statement in his defence within a period of 15 days. The petitioner submitted a detailed written statement of defence and pointed out several lacunas in the charge-sheet. In the written statement of defence it was pointed out that there is no evidence to prove that the file in question, which was taken by the presiding officer of the Court on 29.08.2011 for preparing the ex-parte judgment, was received by the petitioner till 01.10.2011, the day the petitioner handed over the charge of the post of the Civil Clerk to his successor. It is also pointed out that there is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the petitioner with regard to the charges levelled against him. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner was posted from 27.01.2010 to 04.09.2011 as Junior Assistant and was relieved on 01.10.2011. It is submitted that the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner was not considered by the competent authority and a decision was taken to initiate regular departmental enquiry under Rule 33 of the J&K, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. It is further submitted that no formal order was passed for appointment of the enquiry officer. It is also submitted that after issuance of the charge-sheet, FIR was lodged on 30.09.2014 and from the perusal of the enquiry report, it is evident that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are based on surmises and conjectures and there is no material on record to show the involvement of the petitioner with the charges, which have been levelled against him. It is submitted that even though the tampering with file had come to the knowledge of the concerned Judge in the year 2011, yet for two long years no action was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the enquiry report on the ground that on the one hand it has been stated that the petitioner deposited the file in the record room on 02.12.2011, whereas second application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree was made on 11.10.2011. It is also submitted that continued suspension of the petitioner is not justified as no action has been taken in the departmental enquiry, which has been initiated by the respondents against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. V.K. Khanna and others; AIR 2001 SC 343 and Orxy Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India and others; 2010 (13) SCC 427 . 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. V.K. Khanna and others; AIR 2001 SC 343 and Orxy Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India and others; 2010 (13) SCC 427 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner himself had filed an affidavit along an application on 01.05.2015 in which he has stated that he had deposited the file on 01.10.2011, i.e., the date on which he was relieved. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the show cause notice with regard to the proposed punishment, which has been issued to him and therefore, all the questions which have been raised by the petitioner can be decided by the disciplinary authority. It is also submitted that no interference in the matter, at this stage, is called for as the notice issued by the respondents cannot be said to be per se without jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse; 2004(3) SCC 440 and a decision of this Court in the case of B.M. Bakshi v. Union of India and others; 2001(4) SCT 85. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In the peculiar fact circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the notice issued to him, we refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion on the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as in our considered opinion, in case any opinion is expressed with regard to the findings contained in the enquiry report, same would be to the prejudice of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, which is pending against him. Further taking into account the fact that no action in the departmental enquiry has been taken by the respondents against the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to conclude the departmental enquiry against the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. In addition we also direct that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance at the enhanced rate from December, 2015 including arrears, if not already paid. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of along with connected MP.