JANARDAN PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record:

(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.