NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. S.K.Kalia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THROUGH the instant writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9th of August, 2010, passed by the District Judge, Faizabad, whereby they have been dismissed from service. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Driver on different dates in 1986, 1989 and 1996. Their appointments were made regular in the year 1993 and 1998. Since the dates of appointment, they had been working as Driver without any complaint.
(3.) THE facts of the case in brief are recorded here: - On 18th of June, 2010 being aggrieved with the continuous maltreatment and harassment made by one Sri Sahid Ahmad, Central Nazir of the Judgeship of Faizabad, they submitted a joint representation to the acting Chief Justice of the Hon'ble High Court. The kind of harassment as have been alleged in the representation, where they were asked to cut the grass in premises of the Court and also to sweep out the Campus. When they denied to work as a Sweeper, they were asked to pay Rs. 1,000/ - per month to meet out the expenses of District Judge's residence, but when they asked him to issue such an order in writing, he refused to do so. They also reported to District Judge, but he responded in the same manner. Under these circumstances, having no option, they represented jointly to the acting Chief Justice of the Hon'ble High Court. Being annoyed with the aforesaid action of the petitioners, the District Judge, Faizabad by means of the order dated 2nd of July, 2010 suspended them from service and appointed the Additional District Judge/Court No. 1 to enquire into the matter. The order of suspension is on record as annexure no. 8. On the same very date i.e. 2nd of July 2010 the Enquiry Officer issued a joint charge -sheet to all the petitioners containing the charges that they represented to the acting Chief Justice of the Hon'ble High Court without proper channel as such they have violated the 'Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1956, therefore, they are guilty of misconduct. They were asked to submit their reply till 5th of July, 2010 i.e. within three days after issuance of charge -sheet. The petitioners submitted reply on 7th of July, 2010, in which they repeated their allegation and explained as to how they had been harassed by the District Judge.;