- (1.) Heard Sri Manish Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record: By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.9.1988 (Annexure No. 1) passed by opposite party No. 2/ District Judge, Faizabad. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that the petitioner Sri Janardan Prasad Srivastava was initially appointed as a Routine Grade Clerk on 3.2.1977 in the Civil Court, Faizabad, thereafter he was promoted to the next higher post in the pay scale of Rs. . 430-685 on 1.8.1983. On 2.9.1986 while the petitioner was working and discharging his duties in the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Faizabad on the post of Ahalmad, a charge-sheet was served on to him, after receiving the same he submitted his reply thereafter the impugned order dated 16.9.1988 has been passed by the District Judge, Faizabad reverting the petitioner to the post of Routine Grade Clerk.
(2.) Sri Manish Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that no date time and place for conducting the disciplinary inquiry has been fixed, as such the order passed by the District Judge Faizabad is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as against the principle of natural justice. He also submits that the impugned order is in contravention of Rule 4 of the U.P. Subordinate Court Staff Rule 1976, so the same is liable to be set aside.
(3.) Learned State Counsel on the basis of the document/counter-affidavit on record submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under challenge in the present writ petition, but he does not dispute the fact that after giving the reply to the charge-sheet, no fact finding inquiry has been done.;