Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84531 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7063 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Secretary, Kanohar Lal Snatakottar Mahila Mahavidylaya, Sharda Road, Brahmpuri, Meerut (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition). (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service and to pay his regular monthly salary, regularly, every month. (c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to grant arrears of salary 28.10.2024 till date with interest at a rate to be specified by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Admittedly, the order sought to be challenged in the instant writ petition was challenged earlier in Writ-A No. 17881 of 2024, which petition came to be disposed of by means of an order dated 16.12.2024. The order of 16.12.2024 is as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Lal Dev Chaurasia, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ankit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no.2, 3 & 6. 2. The order of suspension dated 28.10.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that order of suspension is absolutely bad in the eyes of law hence same is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand it is argued by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondents no.2, 3 & 6 that disciplinary authority will conclude the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner expeditiously. 5. At this point of time, a prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner to direct the authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner expeditiously. 6. In this view of the matter and without entering in the order of suspension, the writ petition is disposed of directing the disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months. It is made clear that the petitioner will cooperate in the enquiry and will not take any unnecessary adjournment." 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the time being fixed by the Court to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the respondents have not concluded the same. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in 2014 (6) ADJ 641 and a judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 15124 of 2024, passed on 25.9.2024. 5. It has further been contended that the departmental inquiries had been initiated simultaneously against the petitioner as well as Principal of the College and identical charge sheets were issued to both of them. It has further been stated that the Principal of the College has been exonerated and reinstated, whereas the petitioner is being targeted and the enquiry proceedings are not being concluded in gross violation of the previous order of the writ court. 6. Admittedly, this is a second writ petition. The very same suspension order that is sought to be challenged in the instant petition was challenged earlier and by the order dated 16.12.2024, the previous writ petition was disposed of granting time to the college to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of three months. It appears from perusal of the order itself that a request was made by the counsel for the petitioner to direct the authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner expeditiously. Accordingly, the order dated 16.12.2024 was passed. 7. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no assistance to the petitioner, inasmuch as the judgments are based on their own facts and inapplicable in the facts an circumstances of the instant case, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner is an employee who is being proceeded against and the instant petition is the second writ petition. In case the petitioner is aggrieved regarding violation of previous order of this Court, the appropriate remedy is not by filing another writ petition but to file for contempt of court. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find it to be a fit case for interference. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 sfa/ (Jayant Banerji, J) Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad