By the Court.—By this petition the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of punishment dated 17th January, 2006 (Annexure-1) as well as inquiry report dated 14th September, 2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Vide impugned order dated 17th January, 2006 passed by State Government a major penalty of reduction in rank i.e. from substantive rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been inflicted upon the petitioner. A further relief in the nature of mandamus has been sought for commanding the respondents not to take any further action either in furtherance of or as a consequence of the impugned order and to grant and restore all benefits for which the petitioner was entitled but for the impugned punishment awarded to him vide order dated 17th January, 2006.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Munsif (Civil Judge {Junior Division}) in the year 1980. Thereafter he was promoted on the next higher post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) substantively in the year 1990. He was further promoted to the cadre of Higher Judicial Service in the year 2000, under Rule 22(3) of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975 Rules’). On all these posts the petitioner worked with utmost devotion, sincerity, integrity and in accordance with well established judicial norms. And to the best of his knowledge, during the entire period of about 26 years of his service, the work and conduct of the petitioner has been unblemished. No complaint, whatsoever, was ever brought to the notice of the petitioner. The petitioner understands and believes that the Honble High Court granted to the petitioner promotion to the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) substantively and to the post of Additional District Judge in the cadre of U.P. Higher Judicial Service under Rule 22(3) of the 1975 Rules after careful, appropriate and effective evaluation of the merit of his work and conduct including efficiency, honesty and integrity reflected on its record. All of a sudden, without any material the petitioner has been presumed to be dishonest in performing his judicial duties on extraneous consideration or anxiety to unduly favour a party and thereby guilty of misconduct and a charge sheet dated 25.10.2004 was served upon the petitioner on 16.11.2004 vide letter dated 28.10.2004 through District Judge, Pilibhit where the petitioner was working as Additional District Judge. A true copy of the communication dated 28.10.2004 along with charge-sheet dated 25.10.2004 is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. By this charge memo an allegation was levelled against the petitioner that on 16.1.2001 while working as IVth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, he had decided a reference case without proper reference and thereby unduly favoured the claimant in the said decision, against all judicial norms and propriety for extraneous consideration, thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 1956 Rules) and the petitioner was asked to file written reply within stipulated time. In response to the said charge-sheet the petitioner has submitted his written reply on 20.1.2005 through proper channel, a true copy whereof is on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Before the Honble Enquiry Judges also the petitioner has submitted a written submission dated 3.9.2005. A true copy whereof is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Thereafter Honble Enquiry Judges have held inquiry against the petitioner and submitted their inquiry report dated 14.9.2005 holding the petitioner guilty of charge levelled in the charge-sheet. A true copy of inquiry report is on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereupon the Registrar (Confidential) High Court, Allahabad vide letter dated 21.9.2005 has invited the comments of the petitione