Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri Badrish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for opposite parties No. 2 and 3.

2. Aggrieved by the order of termination dated 15.5.2004 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow, the petitioner, above-named, has filed the instant writ petition primarily on the ground that the Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry in fair manner and has submitted its report without fixing any date, time and place for examination of the witnesses; the petitioner was denied opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and as such, the inquiry proceedings being in breach of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 vitiates the impugned order of termination. It has also been contended that the petitioner has made a representation dated 4.1.2002 for change of the place of the inquiry but despite reminders it was not disposed of causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

3. Clarifying the position, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Inquiry Officer/Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow served a charge-sheet upon the peti