Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—Both these writ petitions emanate from disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioners in respect of the same incident. They have, accordingly with the consent of parties, been taken up together for disposal.

2. Disciplinary proceedings against both the petitioners herein were instituted in the following backdrop. It appears that one Election Petition registered as Election Petition No. 3 of 2005-06, Smt. Shail Devi v. Smt. Phulesri and others, came to be instituted in the Court of the respondent No. 6. The Election Petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 74990 of 2005 which was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 9.12.2005. This Court noticing the fact that an Election Petition had already been filed required the respondent No. 6 to decide the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order of this Court.

3. It transpires that the said petition was not disposed of within the aforesaid period. As a result of the above, the election petitioner instituted contempt proceedings, on which notices were issued to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Deoria for non-complinace of the order of this Court. Both the petitioners here were posted as Ahalmads (revenue) in the Court of respondent No. 6 and were accordingly charged with derelection of duty and negligent conduct and ultimately imposed the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect together with an entry of censure in their relevant service records. These punishments were imposed upon both the petitioners on 6th June, 2008 and subsequently affirmed in appeal by orders dated 31st March, 2009 and 18th April, 2009 respectively. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid orders that these two petitions came to be preferred.

4. The genesis of the dispute which gave rise to the present writ petitions, as noticed above, is the same. However, for a proper appreciation of the undisputed facts, it would be relevant to note the following.

5. It is not disputed that this Court disposed of Writ petition No. 74990 of 2005 by its order dated 9th December, 2005 requiring the respondent No. 6 to decide the pending election petition within a period of one year from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. It is also not disputed that the certified copy of the order of this Court was filed in the proceedings pending before the Respondent No. 6 on 28th December, 2005. This fact is duly noticed by the respondent No. 6 in the order sheet maintained in respect of the election petition in question. The writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 42107 of 2009 joined on the post of Ahalmad (Revenue) in the Court of the respondent No. 6 on 11th July, 2007 while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 42110 of 2009 joined the post of Peshkar in the Court of the respondent No. 6 on 24th August, 2007. One Prabhakar Chaubey was posted as Peshkar in the Court of the respondent No. 6 and Ravindra Srivastava was posted as Ahlmad (Revenue) at the time when the order of this Court came to be produced before the said respondent.

6. It appears that when the election petition was not decided by the respondent No. 6 within a period of one year when computed from 28th December, 2005, contempt proceedings were initiated and notices on the said petition were served upon the respondent No. 6 on 20th November, 2007. It is also apposite to note that the election petition itself came to be decided on 3rd December, 2007 by the respondent No. 6. Upon the matter thus coming to light, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 26th December, 2007.

7. From the further facts brought on record, it appears that similar proceedings were taken against Prabhakar Chauvey and Ravindra Nath Srivastava and the said employees were also indicted in departmental proceedings and similar punishments of censure and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect were inflicted upon them. These ord