ORDER : S. G. PANDIT, J. 1. The unsuccessful applicant is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.10454/2023(Annexure-B). The petitioner has sought for declaration that the Departmental enquiry initiated by charge memo dated 03.04.2018 as abandoned and in Application No.10456/2023 (Annexure-C), the petitioner had sought for a direction to consider his case for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Inspector General of Prisons with retrospective effect from the date on which his juniors are promoted vide Notification dated 26.06.2019. 2. Heard Sri.Prithveesh M.K. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar, Prl. Government Advocate for respondent. 3. At present, the petitioner is working as Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Belagavi. The petitioner was issued with Articles of charge dated 03.04.2018 alleging certain misconduct. The petitioner is said to have submitted detailed reply denying the allegations made against him on 26.06.2019. It is stated that juniors of the petitioner were promoted to the next higher cadre of Deputy Inspector of Prison, following sealed cover procedure in respect of petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner approached Tribunal in Application No.7174/2018 questioning the Articles of charge dated 03.04.2018 as well as order dated 03.07.2018. The said applications are said to have been dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions before Enquiry officer. 4. It is submitted that sanction was also accorded on 31.12.2021 to prosecute the petitioner for the offence punishable under the Provisions Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is stated that aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Tribunal in application No.7174/2018, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.8866/2022 which was disposed of by order dated 01.02.2023 with an observation that the enquiry against the petitioner shall be expedited. Thereafter, the present two applications are filed before the Tribunal by the petitioner which were dismissed under the impugned order dated 08.12.2023. 5. Learned counsel Sri. M.K. Prithveesh would submit that though the enquiry is instituted by issuance of Articles of charge dated 03.04.2018, till this date the respondents have not commenced the enquiry which has prejudiced the case of the petitioner and affected his service condition. Further, learned counsel Sri. 5. Learned counsel Sri. M.K. Prithveesh would submit that though the enquiry is instituted by issuance of Articles of charge dated 03.04.2018, till this date the respondents have not commenced the enquiry which has prejudiced the case of the petitioner and affected his service condition. Further, learned counsel Sri. Prithveesh would submit that during this period, the juniors of the petitioner are promoted to the next higher cadre and petitioner is working under the juniors of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that since the enquiry is pending which is delayed by virtue of action of the respondent-Disciplinary Authority, he prays for allowing the writ petition or in the alternative to issue a direction to promote him to the next higher cadre during the pendency of the enquiry. 6. Per contra, learned Prl.GA Sri.G.K.Hiregouder would submit that the charges against the petitioner are very serious, in that the petitioner has allowed drugs inside the jail. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. Further, learned counsel would submit that it is a joint enquiry against the petitioner as well as one Smt.Anitha, Superintendent of Jails. It is submitted that the said Smt.Anitha, Superintendent of Jails had approached the tribunal and had obtained interim order of stay of the enquiry. In that circumstances, for some period the enquiry could not be commenced. Further, the enquiry officer appointed subsequently has issued enquiry notice to the petitioner dated 03.11.2025 directing the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry officer on 12.11.2025 at 3 p.m. The said notice is filed before this Court along with memo dated 04.11.2025, the same is taken on record. In the said notice the enquiry officer has stated that he would try to complete the enquiry within three months. 7. Learned counsel Sri. Prithveesh has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Chaman lal Goyal (1995)2 SCC 570 to contend that whenever there is delay in concluding the enquiry, the Court has to balance and direct the respondents to consider the case of the Government servant for promotion. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 8. Chaman lal Goyal (1995)2 SCC 570 to contend that whenever there is delay in concluding the enquiry, the Court has to balance and direct the respondents to consider the case of the Government servant for promotion. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, taking note of the gravity of the charge against the petitioner, we are not inclined to accept the writ petition. 9. The Articles of charge dated 03.04.2018 came to be issued to the petitioner which is placed on record as Annexure-A1. The charges against the petitioner reads as follows: 10. A reading of the above Articles of charge, indicates that the charges alleged against the petitioner are very serious in nature. If those charges are proved, it warrants major penalty. Be that as it may. It is true that on an earlier occasion when the petitioner had approached this Court, this Court had observed that the enquiry to be completed expeditiously. However, in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has observed that the enquiry proceedings be completed within a period of six months. However, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order of the Tribunal. It is seen that from 2018 onwards in one or the other proceedings, the petitioner is either before the Tribunal or before this Court, therefore, it cannot be said that the enquiry is delayed because of the respondents conduct. However, it is to be noted that for delay in concluding the enquiry, the petitioner himself is responsible. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Chaman lal Goyal supra has observed that wherever there is inordinate delay in initiating the enquiry or in concluding the enquiry, the Court shall balance the situation taking note of the facts of each case and direct the respondents appropriately. To the peculiar facts of the present case, the decisions in Chaman lal Goyal supra would not be applicable. 12. As stated above along with memo dated 04.11.2025, the letter dated 03.11.2025 of the Enquiry Officer is enclosed, wherein it is seen that the Enquiry Officer has fixed the enquiry date as 12.11.2025 and he has also stated that he would try to complete the enquiry within three months. 12. As stated above along with memo dated 04.11.2025, the letter dated 03.11.2025 of the Enquiry Officer is enclosed, wherein it is seen that the Enquiry Officer has fixed the enquiry date as 12.11.2025 and he has also stated that he would try to complete the enquiry within three months. The petitioner shall appear before the Enquiry Officer on 12.11.2025 for further participation in the enquiry. 13. Learned counsel Sri.Prithveesh would submit that the petitioner would cooperate with the Enquiry Officer for early completion of the enquiry. Even after co-operation of the petitioner, if the Enquiry officer fails to complete the enquiry within three months, it is open for the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs. 14. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.