By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Imran Saiyad for the first respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is a formal party.

2. The appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2014, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner and has set aside the order of punishment awarded to him whereby he was reduced in rank from Upper Division Assistant (UDA) to a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the establishment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

3. The background in which the proceedings were initiated against the respondent No. 1 and three others was about the alleged manipulation of an appeal that was got listed and was dismissed. The manner in which the said listing was processed including the preparation of the records of the appeal was the foundation of the charges and accordingly, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the same. The then Registrar of the High Court being the Appointing Authority and the Disciplinary Authority of all Class-III employees examined the enquiry report and came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1/petitioner Sheo Prasad-II deserves to be dismissed from service, and awarded lesser punishments by stopping the increments of Jagdish Sahai Srivastava, Harihar Prasad and Parmeshwar Din. The order of the learned Registrar is extracted hereunder :

“O R D E R

Sarvasri Harihar Prasad (the then Group Incharge of First Appeal Section), Parmeshwar Deen (the then Munsarim of First Appeal Section), Jagdish Sahai Srivastava (the then Second Paper-Book Clerk) and Sheo Prasad (the then Head Counter Paper Book Section) were charge-sheeted on the allegations that they conspired together and managed to get First Appeal No. 348 of 1958 listed in Court without notice to the appellant, Smt. Hira Rani Singhania with the object of having the appeal dismissed in default. In order to achieve this end all the aforesaid four official were alleged to have committed acts against the Rules of Court with a dishonest intention. The substance of the charge against Sri Sheo Prasad was that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, be in his capacity as Head Counter prepared an estimate of deficiency of Rs. 15.31 and sent the same on May 2, 1974 to Sri B. N. Asthana, counsel for the appellant for payment within 30 days but before the expiry of the said period he passed a tender presented by one Sri H. N Singh clerk to Sri V.B. Singh, counsel for the respondents and in this way got the deficiency removed. The result was that the appellant and her counsel were kept in dark and the appeal was dismissed in default on August 20, 1974 and when Sri O.P. Singhania, son of the appellant, made an enquiry from him as to how this manipulation was done, Sri Sheo Prasad said to him:

“Aap ka khoon mere hath se hona likha tha to main kya kar sakta hun.”

Sri Sheo Prasad is further alleged to have quarelled with one Sri Akhtar Hussain of Copying Department on the question of aportionment of the illegal gratification received by him. Sri Sheo Prasad was also alleged to be responsible for a loss of Rs. 87.70 to the Government as deficiency in preparation of the suplementary paper book in the case.

Sri Jagdish Sahai Srivastava is said to have approached the proof distribution clerk, Sri Mahabir Saran, on June 12, 1974 and told him that the appeal in question was an old one and, therefore, he should correct the supplementary paper book at once, he personally received the proof of the said paper book and took it to Bharat Press for printing although it was not his duty to do so, that he also approached the Crown Press and the Aloka Press for preparation of the paper book and that he also took part in the quarrel that took place between Sri Sheo Prasad and Sri Akhtar Hussain on the question of distribution of the illgotten money.

The substance of the