- (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Ashish Mishra for respondent no.2.
(2.) The petitioner, while he was working as Sessions Clerk in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Fatehpur, was placed under suspension by impugned order dated dated 1.01.2016 passed by the second respondent (Incharge District Judge, Fatehpur). The allegation against the petitioner is that he had used unparliamentary language with the Incharge District Judge and misbehaved with him. He appeared to be in a state of intoxication and consequently, he was sent for medical examination at District Hospital, Fatehpur. Following the medical examination a report was given, according to which, his pupil was found dilated and there was alcoholic smell present on expiration. However, his blood pressure was found to be normal. The Incharge District Judge, on the same date, passed the impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension on charge of misconduct. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5 has been appointed as Inquiry Officer and he has been authorised to frame a charge sheet and serve the same on the petitioner after getting it approved from the second respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
(3.) The suspension order is being challenged primarily on two grounds. It is contended that the second respondent, who was officiating as District Judge on that date, was not competent to place the petitioner under suspension inasmuch as there was no delegation of administrative powers of the District Judge in his favour. The other ground on which challenge is laid to the suspension order is that the second respondent himself being the complainant could not be a judge in his own cause and thus, could not have placed the petitioner under suspension. It is urged that the petitioner was not under influence of intoxication, nor the medical examination proves any such fact.;