JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Kuamr Singh, C.S.C.-III assisted by Sri Shashank Bhasin, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief : "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Charge-sheet dated 18.10.2019, issued by opposite party No. 1, contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed in furtherance of the Charge-sheet dated 18.10.2019, issued by opposite party No. 1, contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith grant all consequential benefits such as release of salary, upon quashing of the Charge-sheet dated 18.10.2019, and completion of formalities towards settlement of the post-retiral dues of the petitioner." 3. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the prayers made in the writ petition by submitting that the charge-sheet cannot be assailed before the writ Court and the petitioner should participate in the departmental enquiry. 4. On that Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is assailing the charge-sheet on the ground that no definite charges have been leveled against the petitioner by means of impugned charge sheet dated 18.10.2019 and the relied upon letter dated 16.10.2018 does not disclose any involvement of the petitioner in the issue in question, if any. As a matter of fact, as per Sri Shivam Sharma it cannot be understood as to which exam the petitioner was allegedly involved in committing irregularities, as to who are the persons who were in collusion with the petitioner and as to when the mass copying for particular examination has been detected and who were involved in mass copying at that point of time. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards charge no. 5 which says that after getting the stay order from the Court the petitioner submitted his joining at the place in contravention of the guidelines of government orders. 5. Sri Shivam Sharma has further drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 18.12.2019 which was passed on the first date of admission which reads as under : "Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Sri Shivam Sharma has further drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 18.12.2019 which was passed on the first date of admission which reads as under : "Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the charge sheet on the ground that the charges levelled in the charge sheet are vague and the authority concerned has issued charge sheet just to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension order dated 30.5.2019 was assailed before this Court at Allahabad in Writ-A No.9584 of 2019 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 11.7.2019 directing the opposite parties to expedite the enquiry proceedings and conclude the same within a period of six weeks from 11.7.2019. However, the suspension order was not stayed. The petitioner filed Special Appeal before this Court at Allahabad bearing Special Appeal No.827 of 2019 and the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to admit the said special appeal staying the operation of suspension order dated 30.5.2019 with the further direction that the enguiry against the petitioner may go on and the petitioner shall fully cooperate. It has been clarified in the order dated 28.9.2019 passed by the Division Bench in special appeal that the enquiry may be concluded within the time allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.7.2019. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that six weeks' period w.e.f. 11.7.2019, the date of order of the Single Judge, has already been expired but the departmental enquiry has not been completed. Sri Shivam Sharma has submitted that what to say about conclusion of departmental enquiry, even the charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner on 20.11.2019 much after expiry of the stipulated time, therefore, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in re; Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and others, Service Single No.7179 of 2009, the departmental enquiry may not go on against an employee without seeking leave from the court concerned to that effect. Sri Shivam Sharma has submitted that till date, no such application has been filed before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench, therefore, departmental enquiry against the petitioner may not be conducted. Sri Shivam Sharma has submitted that till date, no such application has been filed before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench, therefore, departmental enquiry against the petitioner may not be conducted. Sri Sharma has further submitted that as per the Full Bench of this Court, this Court may suo moto grant permission to conduct and conclude departmental enquiry after stipulated period but no such order has yet been passed by this Court. Matter requires consideration. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week. List this petition in the week commencing 13th January, 2020. If the enquiry officer/ disciplinary authority has not sought leave from the Court to conduct and conclude the departmental enquiry beyond the stipulated time stipulated by the Court vide order dated 11.7.2019, such departmental enquiry against the petitioner may not go on till the next date of listing." 6. Sri Sharma has submitted that on the first date of admission the relevant facts of the issue in question and the law supporting such averments has been indicated in the said order. 7. For the repetition sake Sri Shivam has submitted that this Court at Allahabad in re: Writ A No. 9584 of 2019 while disposing of the writ petition of petitioner vide order dated 11.7.2019 granted six weeks time to conclude the inquiry. The period of six weeks was expiring on 26.8.2019. Sri Sharma has further submitted that law is trite on the point that the departmental inquiries started from the date when the charge-sheet is served upon the employee and in the present case the charge-sheet was prepared on 18.10.2019 and served upon the petitioner later on. Therefore, the date of initiation of departmental enquiry would be treated on or after 18.10.2019 when the charge-sheet is served upon the petitioner. Before such date no departmental enquiry can be said to have been initiated. Whereas the departmental enquiry should be concluded within a period of six weeks w.e.f. 11.7.2019. Therefore, for all practical purposes the authority concerned has not initiated the departmental enquiry against the petitioner within time so stipulated by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2019. Before such date no departmental enquiry can be said to have been initiated. Whereas the departmental enquiry should be concluded within a period of six weeks w.e.f. 11.7.2019. Therefore, for all practical purposes the authority concerned has not initiated the departmental enquiry against the petitioner within time so stipulated by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2019. Therefore, in view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. passed in W.P. No. (S/S) 7179 of 2009 after expiry of stipulated period the departmental enquiry may not be conducted and concluded against the employee. 8. Two questions were referred before the Full Bench of this Court in re: Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (supra), reads as under : "(a) Whether it an inquiry proceeding is not concluded within a time frame fixed by a Court and concluded thereafter, without seeking extension from the Court then on the said ground the entire inquiry proceeding as well as punishment order passed, is vitiated in view of the judgment in the case of P.N. Srivastava; and (b) Whether the law as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.N. Srivastava that if an inquiry proceeding is not concluded within a time frame as fixed by a Court, it stands vitiated is still a good law in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra as well as a judgment dated 27.7.2009 of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1056(SB) of 2009 (Union of India and others v. Satendra Kumar Sahal and another)." 9. The Full Bench has answered the aforesaid question vide para 18 of the judgment, which reads as under : "18. In view of the above discussion, we now proceed to answer the questions which have been referred to the Full Bench. (A) Question No. (a): We hold that if an enquiry is not concluded within the time which has been fixed by the Court, it is open to the employer to seek on extension of time by making an appropriate application to the Court setting out the reasons for the delay in the conclusion of the enquiry, in such an event, it is for the Court to consider whether time should be extended, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, where there is a stipulation of time by the Court, it will not be open to the employer to disregard that stipulation and an extension of time must be sought; (B) Question No. (b): The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra (supra) as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar Sahai (supra) clearly indicate that a mere delay on the part of the employer in concluding a disciplinary inquiry will not ipso facto nullify the entire proceedings in every which has fixed a stipulation of time has jurisdiction to extend the time and it is open to the Court, while exercising that jurisdiction, to that a enquiry Court the time the delay has been satisfactorily explained. The Court can suitably extend time for conclusion of the enquiry either in a proceeding instituted by the employee challenging the enquiry on the ground that it was not within the stipulated period or even upon an independent application moved by the employer. The Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant an extension of time, the original stipulation of time having been fixed by the Court itself. Such an extension of time has to be considered in the interests of justice balancing both the need for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry in the interests of fairness and an honest administration. In an appropriate case, it would be open to the Court to extend time suo motu in order to ensure that a serious charge of misconduct does not go unpunished leading to a serious detriment to the public interest. The Court has sufficient powers to grant an extension of time both before and after the period stipulated by the Court has come to an end. We, accordingly, dispose of the reference in the aforesaid terms The petition sh now be placed before the regular Court for disposal in light of the observations ma hereinabove." 10. In view of the decision of this Court in Full Bench in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (supra) the departmental enquiry should be conducted and concluded within time frame so provided by this Court vide specific order and if such enquiry is not concluded within time stipulated, the disciplinary authority / inquiry officer may file appropriate application before the Court concerned seeking further time to conclude the departmental enquriy. Even this Court may suo moto extend the time to conduct the departmental enquiry, if the charges are so serious. 11. In the present case an application for grant of time has been filed by the Standing Counsel on 25.1.2020, however, the time was expiring on 26.8.2019. Since this Court at Allahabad had granted time to conclude the departmental enquiry within time frame and the Division Bench of this Court had not extended any further time to conclude the departmental enquiry, therefore, such application could have been filed before this Court at Allahabad in the same writ petition. Even if the opposite parties were serious to conduct departmental enquiry seeking further time the appropriate application could have been filed here at Lucknow in the month of August, 2019 itself. Not only the above at least some seriousness and carefulness must have been shown by the disciplinary authority / inquiry officer in compliance of order dated 11.7.2019 issuing charge-sheet against the petitioner with promptness and the departmental enquiry should be concluded within stipulated time. In the present case even the charge-sheet has been issued after about two months from expiry of the period so fixed by this Court inasmuch as the period to conclude the departmental enquiry was expiring on 26.8.2019 whereas the charge-sheet has been prepared on 18.10.2019. 12. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to extend further time to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in re: Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (supra). 13. The suo moto extension can be granted if this Court finds that the disciplinary authority / inqiry officer was so serious, they responded promptly after the order of this Court, issued the charge-sheet and started departmental enquiry but anyhow the same could not be concluded within time frame. I wonder the aforesaid exercise and intent to obey the direction of this Court is absolutely missing in this case. For the repetition sake I hereby observe that even departmental enquiry against the petitioner has not been started within time frame so there is no question to extend the time to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 14. I wonder the aforesaid exercise and intent to obey the direction of this Court is absolutely missing in this case. For the repetition sake I hereby observe that even departmental enquiry against the petitioner has not been started within time frame so there is no question to extend the time to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 14. I have also noted one fact that petitioner has already retired from service on 29.2.2020, therefore, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner after his retirement particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the issue in question as considered above, cannot be permitted. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and also considering the decision of Full Bench in re: Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (supra) I do not permit the opposite party no. 1 to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 18.10.2019 as the aforesaid charge-sheet has been issued beyond the stipulated period so fixed by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2019. 16. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. 17. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the charge-sheet dated 18.10.2019 issued by the opposite party no. 1, as contained in Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. 18. Consequences to follow.