B. N. Sapru, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged an order of ti e High Court of Allahabad dated 5-7-1979 reverting the petitioner from the post of an officiating Civil Judge to that of the Munsif.
(2.) From 11-1-1971 to 24-6-19/4 the petitioner was posted as an officiating Civil Judge, Agra. Certain complaints were received against the petitioner and the matter was enquired into by the High Court both through the Registrar and the Vigilance. As a result of the enquiry, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 7-1-1977. The charge sheet has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition and contains two charges which are reproduced below:- "Charge No. I. - You issued four commissions on 24-4-1974, 25-1-1974, 28-9-1974, 6-1-1974 in Suits No. 43 of 1974, 38 of 1974, 361 of 1973, 16 of 1974 to Sri R.S. Yadav, Advocate, Agra, even though he was not on the approved list of Commissioners for the year 19 4 and also appointed him guardian ad Item in Suits No. 344 of 1972, 22 of 1972 on -5-2974, 11-2-1974 and Receiver in Suit No. 50 of 1974 on 14-2-1974 and thus by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing your position as public servant obtained for Sri Yadav and for yourself pecuniary advantage. Charge No. 2. - You issued interim injunction order on 11-1-1974 in Suit No. 26 of 1974 against nine persons directing them to make supply of 568 wagons of coal and by the interim injunction thus issued the defendants aforesaid were forced to make delivery of the said 5f 8 wagons of coal. The not prohibitory. The order, dated 11-1-1974 made you initially recited that the wagons be supplied or cause be shown by the date fixed but it appears that thereafter on the plaintiffs application on 12-1-1974 the words "or to show cause by the said date" were deleted. In making the interim injunction order and subsequently deleting the portion of the order specified above, you were influenced by extraneous considerations and thus by corrupt or illegal means and by otherwise abusing your position as public servant, you obtained for the plaintiffs undue pecuniary advantage."
(3.) The petitioners case was referred to the Administrative Tribunal No. 3, U. P, Lucknow. The Administrative Tribunal after an enquiry exonerated the petitioner in respect of charge no and we are No. longer concern with it.;