Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order of dismissal from service. The question cropped up in the present case is ; whether only because of compliance of the judgment and order passed by the High Court without seeking prior permission of the superiors, the services of an employee can be dismissed treating the action as misconduct?

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that the petitioner was posted as Registrar Kanungo in Tahsil Sandeela, District Hardoi. One Bhawani Prasad approached this Court by preferring a Writ Petition No. 9892 of 1989, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 22.1.1992, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 22.1.1992 is reproduced as under :

“In view of 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 order passed by all the three consolidation authorities are hereby quashed. The consolidation authorities shall treat the petitioner as `Bhumidhar’ of the land in question and proceed in accordance with law.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

3. The petitioner Bhawani Prasad of the aforesaid writ petition submitted a certified copy of the judgment of this Court (supra) to the District Magistrate, who in turn forwarded the same for compliance to Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sandeela forwarded the same for compliance to the petitioner, who was working as Registrar Kanungo. In compliance of the judgment of this Court, the petitioner recorded the name of Sri Bhawani Prasad for which he was authorised under law. On account of the aforesaid act on the part of the petitioner, by an order dated 18.7.1996 the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report that while recording the name of Sri Bhawani Prasad in compliance of the judgment of this Court, the petitioner as Registrar Kanungo did not follow the procedure provided under the statute and straight away mutated the name of farmer. A finding was recorded by the Inquiry Officer that since procedure for mutation was not followed by the petitioner and he had recorded the name of Bhawani Prasad without approval of superiors hence he has committed serious misconduct and his services are liable to be dismissed. In pursuance of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the services of the petitioner were dismissed by impugned order dated 14.11.1996 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 14.11.1996 is reproduced as under :

“Maine aropi dwara prastut espastikaran, janch adhikari ki akhya tatha karan batao notice ke prati prastut espastikaran dinankit 7.11.1996 ka bhalibhanti parikshan va vicharan kar liya hai. Chunki prasnagat prakaran gaon sabha bhumi ka ek bahut bade kshetraphal par aropi dwara apne kisi bhi uchchadhikari ka adesh prapt kiye bina hi amaldaramad kar liya gaya hai jisme aropi ki durabhisandhi prateet hoti hai atev uske viruddha prasnagat arop purnataya siddha pate huve mai ishi niskarsha par pahuncha hoon ki is prakar manmane dhang ke swechhacharita baratne wale anushashanheen karmchari ko sewa mein banaye rakhane ka koi auchitya prateet nahi hota hai tatha ose sewa se barkhast (nilambit) kar diya jana hi rajya sarkar ke hit mein uchit va nyay sangat hoga.

Uprokta karno se Sri Ganesh Prasad, Sahayak Registrar Kanungo Tahsil Sandila, Janpad Hardoi ko etaddwara tatkalik prabhav se sewa se barkhast kiya jata hai. Is adesh ki tamil aropi par tatkal sunischit ki jaye.”

4. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that since