JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. This is the second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner filed earlier a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.84 of 2005, fundamentally being aggrieved by acceptance of his resignation in the perspective that he had withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance. This court made an elaborate scrutiny of the records and the transaction for issuing the direction in the following manner: “Embedded with the series of facts as narrated in the writ petition and the response made thereto, this Court finds that while issuing the impugned order dated 08.06.2004, the competent authority did not at all consider the incidence of recalling of the resignation letter by the communication dated 08.07.1994 and its legal impact. Even though in the counter affidavit they have improved their stand by way of averment which according to this Court cannot be accepted as the true account of facts. Apart that, the law postulates that if within the period of three months or before the resignation is accepted the person, who had tendered to resign, recalls the said resignation, the appointing authority should not act on such prayer for resignation mechanically. They may of course resort to the other action. Apart that, the contentions of the respondents that since the resignation was accepted from 25.05.1994 it has to be deemed that the resignation has been effective from the said date and therefore the communication for recalling the resignation made on 0.07.1994 cannot have any impact on the decision as taken by the respondents. This analogy at the same time cannot be accepted by this Court. The date of acceptance of the resignation cannot be dated back in the manner as has been done in this case, unless is opted by the person concerned without change of the position interregnum. The date of acceptance has to be on 08.06.2004 for all purpose. As such, the impugned order dated 08.06.2004 cannot sustain the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the said order dated 08.06.2004 stands quashed. But at the same time this Court would not travel beyond this direction. The date of acceptance has to be on 08.06.2004 for all purpose. As such, the impugned order dated 08.06.2004 cannot sustain the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the said order dated 08.06.2004 stands quashed. But at the same time this Court would not travel beyond this direction. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the following aspects as emerged in this proceeding within a reasonable time but by any rate not later than six months from today. (a) Whether the petitioner can get the study leave for the period as spent for prosecuting his studies in the course of B. Tech in the NERIST in terms of the provisions of Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986, if that period of absence has not been already regularized by other leave/s. (b) Whether the petitioner can be absorbed in the Grade-VA of the Tripura Engineering Service for acquisition of the degree of B. Tech. from NERIST on preference of the writ petitioner. If he is absorbed in the said grade what would be his seniority in the final seniority list and; The respondents are given liberty to take appropriate decision as regards the absence of the petitioner from 25.04.1994 till date. While taking such decision the respondents are directed to take due consideration of the communication dated 08.07.1994, where the petitioner had categorically expressed to join his service as the Junior Engineer, Mech. under the PWD. With this direction and observation, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. In terms of the said direction as recorded in the judgment and order dated 21.06.2013 in W.P.(C) No.84 of 2005, the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD (R&B) by the office order under No.F.4(191)-PWD(LC)/2005 dated 11.09.2013 has cancelled the office order dated 08.06.2004 and accepted the joining report of the petitioner dated 12.07.2013. It has been provided in the said order dated 08.06.2004 that the pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be fixed as per rules and the other issues mentioned in the said judgment dated 21.06.2013 will be separately dealt with. It has been provided in the said order dated 08.06.2004 that the pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be fixed as per rules and the other issues mentioned in the said judgment dated 21.06.2013 will be separately dealt with. Later on, by the memorandum dated 07.12.2013 under No.F.2(163)-PWD(GE)/2012, the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B) has drawn the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for unauthorized absence, constituting the misconduct and misbehavior, under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. By the said memorandum dated 07.12.2013 [Annexure-23 to the writ petition], the charge has been slapped against the petitioner: ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO-1 Shri Nirmalya Datta, Junior Engineer, TES Gr-V(B) (Mech) office of the Assistant Engineer, Mechanical Sub Division No.1, Agartala under the control of the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Agartala had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty owing to the following reasons and this is most unbecoming on the part of a Govt. servant. (i). Sri Datta left his place of posting at Agartala w.e.f. 25.04.1994 for Kolkata without prior permission of the Department and joined in service in a private company in Kolkata without applying for the same through proper channel and without following the due procedure and thus violated the Service Conduct Rules. (ii). Sri Datta did not report for duty for about 10 years after filing the prayer dated 08.07.1994 for revocation of his resignation prayed for vide his application dated 25.05.1994 and thus violated the Service Conduct Rules. (iii). Sri Datta had kept himself unauthorized absent from Government duty for the period from 25.04.1994 to 07.06.2004 i.e. more than 10(ten) years. Therefore, the activity of Shri Nirmalya Datta, Junior Engineer, TES Gr-V(B) (Mech) attracts the provision of Rule 3(1) of TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1988 which is good and sufficient reason within the meaning of Rule – 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 for proceedings against him under Rule 14 of the said Rules. 4. According to Mr. Deb, learned counsel, the petitioner has filed the written statement of defence and the Inquiring Authority has been appointed to carry forward the said inquiry. But the proceeding, not only failed to its logical end as yet but for the reason that no regular proceeding is taking place, the petitioner has been at the end of gross prejudice. Mr. Deb, learned counsel, the petitioner has filed the written statement of defence and the Inquiring Authority has been appointed to carry forward the said inquiry. But the proceeding, not only failed to its logical end as yet but for the reason that no regular proceeding is taking place, the petitioner has been at the end of gross prejudice. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has ruefully submitted that in terms of direction as extracted above, the proceeding had not been completed within the time i.e. a period of six months as prescribed. 5. The departmental proceeding as drawn up by the memorandum dated 07.12.2013 [Annexure-23 to the writ petition] therefore be declared wholly illegal and in contravention of the direction given by this court. This court has scrutinized the direction again. But there is no direction from this court in respect of the departmental proceeding. The respondents were asked to take appropriate decision on the aspects as pointed out in the said order. The decision of drawing up departmental proceeding is the outcome of the said exercise. Thus, this court is of the view that issuance of the memorandum dated 07.12.2013 [Annexure-23 to the writ petition] is within the competence of the Chief Engineer, PWD (R & B), the Disciplinary Authority and hence, no interference is called for. However, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has made a statement that the petitioner is on the verge of his retirement and hence, the departmental proceeding needs to be completed within a reasonable period. 6. Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. did not oppose that prayer and in terms of his submission, the respondents are directed to complete the departmental proceeding within a period of 6(six) months. If necessary, the proceeding be carried out day to day basis. 7. It is made clear that beyond the period of six months, no further extension of time would be granted under any circumstances. However, for any reason if the petitioner is found non-cooperative, the said period shall be added to the period as prescribed by this court and for that purpose, the respondents are not required to approach this court. In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.