Shobha Dikshit, J. - (1.) Learned Standing Counsel accepts notice and is granted six weeks' time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
(2.) One Bhavani Prasad filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 9892 of 1989 with the grievance that the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have not been strictly complied with and correct entries have not been made with regard to the petitioner. A learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the matter passed the following order: "In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the consolidation authorities incorrectly denied petitioner's claim. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed and the orders passed by all the three consolidation authorities are hereby quashed. The consolidation authorities snail treat the petitioner as Bhumidhar of the land in question and proceed in accordance with law."
(3.) Pursuant to the said judgment the writ petitioner Bhavani Prasad moved an application before the Collector for implementation of the said judgment. A copy of the application is contained in Annexure-3. On this application, the District Magistrate and the S. D. M. noted to take necessary steps for implementation of the judgment. The petitioner was at that relevant time posted as Assistant Registrar Kanoongo and this direction of the superior officers reached him. In these circumstances, the petitioner states that he implemented the judgment of the High Court and made the necessary entries. The opposite parties after the implementation of the judgment suspended the petitioner on 18-7-96 and served a charge sheet on him dated 18-7-1996 on the ground that he should explain as to why he implemented the judgment of the High Court without obtaining the orders from superior officers. The relevant part reads as follows : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 4. The petitioner submitted a reply to this charge sheet which is contained in Annexure-10 where he explained that he implemented it because the District Magistrate and the Sub Divisional Magistrate had directed the implementation of the judgment and to the best of his ability, he implemented the order as he understood it. The departmental enquiry was conducted thereafter and he has been dismissed from service vide orders dated 14-11-1996. The punishing authority has also held that because the petitioner had implemented the judgment without obtaining the orders of the superior officers, therefore, it appears that the petitioner had colluded. 5. I have head the learned counsel fer the petitioner. The order of dismissal prima facie appears to be unjust, and disproportionate. The fact is that the petitioner implemented the judgment of the High Court and whether in the facts and circumstances of this case or in any facts, any officer or official who is under duty to implement the judgment of the Court, is required to further seek orders for implementation from superior officers over and above the judgment of the High Court. In fact, such a direction is contemptuous in nature. In these facts and circumstances, of the case, I hereby stay the operation of the order of dismissal and direct the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to resume his duties subject to the result of the writ petition. Decided accordingly.;