Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5172 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6968 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ratan Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy., Sachivalaya Sashan Vibhag, Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person,Mohd Ateeq Khan (Amicus Curiae) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mohd. Ateeq Khan, Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) Kindly direct the Industrial Development Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to end the departmental inquiry and other proceedings initiated by the department by showing the petitioner as illegally absent. (ii) Departmental enquiry is going on against the petitioner. Kindly direct the Industrial Development Department, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow to dispose of the matter as soon as possible. (iii) Kindly direct the Industrial Development Department, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow to grant provisional pension to the petitioner for his maintenance till the departmental and judicial proceedings against him are pending. (iv) Kindly take action on the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement dated 18.04.2016 as per rules and direct the Industrial Development Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to make immediate payment of his General Provident Fund, Group Insurance, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other outstanding dues." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is a handicapped person, was appointed on the post of Typist in U.P. Secretariat on 01.09.1984. After attaining the age of 53 years, he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant/Assistant Review Officer on 01.03.1995. After rendering the service for almost 32 years and on attaining the age of 53 years, the petitioner prayed for voluntary retirement due to his bad physical and mental health by moving an application on 18.04.2016 and 19.04.2016 but no decision was taken by the respondents on the said application of the petitioner even after the expiry of seven years. He has further submitted that after submitting the application for voluntary retirement, petitioner, under the impression that his application has been accepted, stopped attending his official duties. It is on this account that the respondents, holding that the petitioner has unauthorizedly absented himself, proceeded disciplinary proceeding against him. He has next submitted that in the inquiry, the petitioner had participated, and thereafter, inquiry report was submitted on 03.05.2023 by the Inquiry Officer i.e. Deputy Secretary, Establishment and Industrial Development Department, holding in light of the fact that the prosecution has not produced any document or even substantiated the charge leveled against the petitioner. He had also given an opinion that the entire proceeding deserved to be dropped. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the inquiry report was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and it seemed from the report of the Inquiry Officer as he was of the opinion that in case any document was required, the same could have been sought by the petitioner. In that regard, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.10.2023, which was received by him on 21.11.2023. The petitioner had responded to the show-cause notice but till date, no order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 5. Considering the facts that even otherwise, petitioner would have retired from service at attaining the age of superannuation, and also that disciplinary proceeding is pending for the substantial length of time and only is pending due to stage of Rule 9 of the Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The ground is made out for interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. While passing the order in the disciplinary proceedings, it shall also be taken into account that in the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner, there is no mention of any document and also it does not contain any list of documents whether in such circumstances, the petitioner could have moved an application for inspection of record is an issue which should be taken into consideration. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. 8. Mohd. Ateeq Khan, Advocate has assisted this Court by appearing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner. 9. The State Legal Services Authority is directed to make payment to Mohd. Ateeq Khan, Advocate in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur,J.) Order Date :- 27.1.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench