JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Court has passed order dated 15.7.2019 which is as under : "Heard Sri Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri Prafulla Tiwari has filed rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit, the same is taken on record. By means of this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the suspension order dated 8.3.2019. The case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 19.12.2018 the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 appointing Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur Region, P.W.D., Gorakhpur as enquiry officer which is Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the specific indication in the order dated 19.12.2018 that the charge-sheet shall be prepared and be approved within a period of one week, no charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner for about three months. He has further submitted that instead of issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner and conducting the inquiry, vide office memo dated 8.3.2019 the petitioner was placed under suspension and the suspension order reads that the inquiry officer would be the same as has been appointed vide office memo dated 19.12.2018 i.e. Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur, P.W.D., Gorakhpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition on 2.7.2019 challenging the aforesaid suspension order on the ground that about four months period has passed w.e.f. 8.3.2019 no charge-sheet has been prepared and approved to the petitioner whereas the charge-sheet should have been prepared and approved within a period of seven days w.e.f. 19.12.2018 as indicated in the said order itself. Considering the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the inquiry officer has done nothing pursuant to the office memo dated 19.12.2018 whereby he was appointed inquiry officer and was directed to prepare the charge-sheet within a period of one week. However, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that he has got no specific instructions to that effect. However, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that he has got no specific instructions to that effect. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when this Court has passed order dated 4.7.2019 seeking instructions from the State as to whether the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner or not, the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner on 6.7.2019 which has been enclosed with short counter affidavit as Annexure- S.C.A.-3. The charge-sheet is dated 5.7.2019. This Court is unable to comprehend as to why no charge-sheet was provided to the petitioner pursuant to the office memo dated 19.12.2018 wherein it has been categorically indicated that the charge-sheet should be prepared within seven days and after getting it approved from the competent authority shall be served to the petitioner after getting it approved from the competent authority. This is settled law that the inquiry against the employee might have been conducted and concluded even without placing him under suspension and the purpose of suspension is to keep the employee away from the place where the alleged incident took place for which the inquiry is to be conducted. Even if the employee has been placed under suspension, the charge-sheet should be served upon him with promptness. In the present case since the competent authority was conscious about this fact which has been indicated in the order dated 19.12.2018 that charge-sheet should be prepared within one week. List this case on 17.7.2019 in the Additional Cause List to enable learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek complete instructions from the authorities as to what happened after issuance of office memo dated 19.12.2018 and also as to why the charge-sheet against the petitioner has not been prepared within a period of one week as indicated in that order. Further, as to why the charge-sheet has not been served upon the petitioner with promptness even after placing him under suspension on 8.3.2019 and why the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner when this Court has called upon the specific instructions to that effect." 3. Further, as to why the charge-sheet has not been served upon the petitioner with promptness even after placing him under suspension on 8.3.2019 and why the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner when this Court has called upon the specific instructions to that effect." 3. In compliance of the aforesaid order learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the copy of the instruction letter dated 17.7.2019 preferred by one Sri Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, Special Secretary, Department of Public Works addressing to the office of Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow enclosing therewith some correspondences being made by the Department relating to the present issue, same is taken on record. 4. By means of order dated 15.7.2019 the specific query was put from the State-respondents as to what happened after issuance of office memo dated 19.12.2018 and as to why the charge-sheet against the petitioner has not been prepared within a period of one week, as indicated in the said order. The perusal of the instructions letter dated 17.7.2019 does not answer the query of the Court. However, this much has been indicated that charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner after placing him under suspension. It has also been indicated in this letter that before issuance of the charge-sheet the matter has been examined by the committee. Admittedly, the charge-sheet has been issued after filing of this writ petition and the charge-sheet is dated 5.7.2019 which has been served upon the petitioner on 6.7.2019. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the copy of the order dated 10.7.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8643(S/S) of 2019 saying that in the identical matter this Court has only directed to conclude the departmental inquiry against Sri Vinay Kumar Ram the petitioner of that writ petition within a period of six months. After being confronted from the State counsel on the point as to whether the matter of Vinay Kumar Ram and present matter is same, this Court summoned the record of Writ-Service Single No. 8643 of 2019. After being confronted from the State counsel on the point as to whether the matter of Vinay Kumar Ram and present matter is same, this Court summoned the record of Writ-Service Single No. 8643 of 2019. The perusal of records of paper-book of W.P. No. 8643(S/S)2019 reveals that Sri Vinay Kumar Ram was suspended on 8.3.2019 and charge-sheet was served on 2.5.2019 whereas in the present case suspension order dated 8.3.2019 itself provides that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner shall be conducted in terms of office memo dated 19.12.2018 and the inquiry officer would be the same i.e. the Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur Region, Public Works Department, Gorakhpur, meaning thereby the present suspension order is an extension of earlier office memo dated 19.12.2018 inasmuch as the charges are the same and the inquiry officer is the same, therefore, the departmental inquiry against the petitioner would be treated as pending w.e.f 19.12.2018, however, for the same departmental inquiry he has been placed under suspension on 8.3.2019 after about three months and charge-sheet has been served on 6.7.2019. Therefore, both the writ petitions are not similar in nature. 6. The Court is unable to comprehend as to why the petitioner has been placed under suspension after about three moths from the initiation of departmental inquiry for the same issue as this is not the case of department that the petitioner is not cooperating with the departmental proceedings rather the instruction letter dated 17.7.2019 reveals that no departmental inquiry has been conducted even after issuance of office memo dated 19.12.2018 what to say about conducting the departmental inquiry, even the charge-sheet was not prepared against the petitioner which was directed in the office memo dated 19.12.2018 that the charge-sheet would be prepared within a period of seven days and shall be approved from the competent authority thereby charge-sheet shall be issued to the petitioner. Admittedly, for the departmental inquiry which was initiated pursuant to the office memo dated 19.12.2018 the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 5.7.2019 i.e. about 7 months from the initiation of departmental inquiry. The instruction letter does not disclose as to why the charge-sheet was not prepared within a period of seven days as no explanation to that effect has been given in the said letter. 7. The instruction letter does not disclose as to why the charge-sheet was not prepared within a period of seven days as no explanation to that effect has been given in the said letter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the Government Order under the heading of "Sheersh Prathmikta" bearing no. 793/23-13-17-8 (General)/17 dated 31.3.2017 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Public Works Department addressing to Engineer-in-Chief, Development and Head of Department, Public Works Department wherein vide para 2(iv) it has been categorically indicated that if the departmental inquiry is initiated against the employee of P.W.D., the charge-sheet would be provided to the incumbent within a period of 15 days and thereafter the incumbent shall submit his defense reply within a period of one month and thereafter the inquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law and in any case the departmental inquiry shall be concluded within a maximum period of three months. Obviously the period of three months would start from submission of defense reply to the charge-sheet. 8. In the case in hand the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was initiated on 19.12.2018 and the charge-sheet was not prepared within a period of seven days as mandated in the said order dated 19.12.2018 and has not been provided to the petitioner within 15 days as provided in the Government Order dated 31.3.2017, therefore, the departmental inquiry against the petitioner could not have been concluded within three months as per the Government Order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, 2015 16 SCC 415 referring para 26 and 28 thereof which is being reproduced herein below: "26. Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases where the 13 Page 14 delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee. 28. In cases where the 13 Page 14 delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee. 28. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far 14 Page 15 as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year" 10. The perusal of para 28 clearly mandates that the departmental inquiry being initiated against an employee shall be conducted and concluded with expedition and the outer limit for conclusion of departmental inquiry has been fixed as six months. In the present case the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was initiated on 19.12.2018 but no departmental inquiry has been concluded against the petitioner with said period for the reason that he has been served the charge-sheet dated on 6.7.2019 i.e. after about 7 months. Since the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner after about seven months the departmental inquiry could have not been concluded within aforesaid six months even as per the dictum of Hon' Apex Court in re: Prem Nath Bali (supra). Besides, since the charge sheet has not been served on the petitioner within a period of 15 days, therefore, the said inaction on the part of competent authority is in derogation of guidelines of Government Order dated 31.3.2017 which has been issued for the department of Public Works Department itself. 11. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, 2013 16 SCC 147 referring para 26 which is being reproduced herein below: "26. 11. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, 2013 16 SCC 147 referring para 26 which is being reproduced herein below: "26. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Sardul Singh, 1970 1 SCC 108 ; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 1993 1 SCC 419 ; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul Razak, 1996 AIR(SC) 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., 1988 AIR(SC) 2118; Delhi Cloth General Mills vs. Kushan Bhan, 1960 AIR(SC) 806; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v. Sanjeev Rajan, 1993 Supp3 SCC 483; State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena & Ors., 1996 6 SCC 417 ; Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, 1996 3 SCC 157 ; and Allahabad Bank & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, 1997 4 SCC 1 , wherein it has been observed that even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the court to interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review its order of suspension being an inherent power conferred upon them by the provisions of Article 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned. Where the charges are baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep the delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review is made out. But in a case where no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and in order that the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought to have been and it results in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent employee, the court may issue directions. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought to have been and it results in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent employee, the court may issue directions. The court may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation for delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct to complete the enquiry within a stipulated period. However, mere delay in conclusion of enquiry or trial can not be a ground for quashing the suspension order, if the charges are grave in nature. But, whether the employee should or should not continue in his office during the period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary authority concerned and ordinarily the court should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed in mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question." 12. On the basis of aforesaid para Sri Ran Vijay Sigh has submitted that this has been the view of Hon'ble Apex Court that there should be no interference on the suspension order and at the best the direction may be issued to expedite the departmental inquiry. 13. I have perused the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) and this is the case wherein the employee was placed under suspension on account of pending criminal proceedings against him and the departmental inquiry was being conducted against him on account of the criminal case but in the present case no criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 14. Not only the above, in the present case the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Prem Nath Bali (supra) which categorically provides the outer limit for concluding inquiry as six months which has not been followed in the present case, inasmuch as, even the charge-sheet has been served after about 7 months. Not only the above, since the specific Government Order has been issued for the department in question i.e. Public Works Department issuing guidelines for conducting departmental inquiry wherein the outer limit has been given as three months and in the present case the same has not been followed, inasmuch as, neither the charge-sheet has been served within 15 days nor the departmental inquiry has been conducted within time frame. As a matter of fact in the present case the departmental inquiry could have not been concluded within maximum period of three months for the reason that the charge-sheet was not served upon the petitioner for substantial period, to be more precise for about seven months from the initiation of departmental inquiry, therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact the judgment so referred by Sri Ran Vijay Singh would not be applicable in the present case rather the present case shall be dealt with considering the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Prem Nath Bali (supra). 15. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant material on record as well as the dictums of Hon'ble Apex court (supra), I am of the view that the suspension order dated 8.3.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the suspension order dated 8.3.2019 (Annexure no. 1) is hereby quashed. 16. Since the charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner on 6.7.2019, therefore, it is expected that the petitioner shall submit the defense reply to the charge-sheet within a period of one month from today. Thereafter, the departmental inquiry shall be conducted and concluded against the petitioner within further period of three months strictly in terms of Government Order dated 31.3.2017 and thereafter the disciplinary authority may pass final order, if it is so warranted but strictly in accordance with law within a further period of one month. 17. Since the suspension order has been quashed, therefore, the competent authority shall pass appropriate orders posting the petitioner at any place in the State of U.P. where the competent authority deems fit and proper and the petitioner shall be paid his salary. It is also directed that the petitioner shall cooperate with the departmental inquiry and he shall not take any unnecessary adjournment and if the petitioner does not cooperate with the departmental proceedings, any adverse inference may be drawn against him for the reason that departmental inquiry may not be conducted and concluded if the employee does not cooperate with the departmental proceedings. 18. In view of the aforesaid terms the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.