Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked against the order dated 25.1.2014 passed by the District Judge, Bijnor, the third respondent whereby the petitioner’s services have been terminated.

2. The factual matrix of this case is in a short compass. The petitioner was initially appointed as Orderly in the District Judgeship, Bijnor vide order dated 25.8.2003. Later, he was transferred to Outline Court, Nagina on 12.8.2013 and deputed as Chowkidar. It was also mentioned in his transfer order that he shall be on duty in the night.

3. The petitioner joined at Nagina and had been performing his duties as Chowkidar. A complaint was made against him by the Deputy Nazir, Munsif Court, Nagina that he was found absent at 11:45 p.m. on 2.9.2013. It was also mentioned in the report/complaint that after half an hour at 12:15 a.m. he was again called but he did not turn up at the gate, so it was presumed that the petitioner was sleeping and he was negligent in performance of his duties. On the said complaint, a show-cause notice was issued to him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 6.9.2013 denying the allegations made in the show-cause notice. He has stated that there is huge premises of the Court and he takes round of the entire premises and building.

4. A show-cause notice was issued in respect of his absence and it was also alleged that the petitioner does not live at Nagina and he lives at Bijnor daily. In his reply he has also denied the fact that he does not live at Nagina. It is stated that he has taken house on rent at Nagina where he resides.

5. Learned District Judge suspended the petitioner vide order dated 17.9.2013 and a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Additional District Judge, Outline Court, Nagina, who submitted his report on 30.9.2013. In the said report the complaint made by the Deputy Nazir was found to be correct.

6. The learned District Judge took a decision to hold a final enquiry in the matter vide his order dated 1.10.2013 and the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Bijnor was appointed as an enquiry officer.

7. It is stated that a charge-sheet dated 3.10.2013 was served upon the petitioner on 9.10.2013 wherein he has been directed to submit his reply by 10.10.2013 hence only twenty-four hours time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply.

8. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and found that both the charges were proved against the petitioner.

9. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and directed to issue a show-cause notice. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.11.2013. The said show-cause notice was issued under Rule-3 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as to why he may not be punished.

10. The petitioner submitted his reply. He made a request that he may also be personally heard. He also raised the issue of violation of the principles of natural justice as only twenty-four hours time was granted to him to submit his reply to the show-cause notice. He has also stated that the statement of his landlord Sitaram was not considered in proper perspective and he has been punished without any evidence on record.

11. A counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as a class-IV employee on purely ad hoc basis in the vacancy occurred in the Fast Track Court vide order dated 29.5.2003 which continues till the life of the Fast Track Court and on the revival of the Fast Track Courts the petitioner was appointed again purely on ad hoc basis as a class-IV employee vide order dated 26.5.2005.

12. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that on 3.9.2013 in a surprise inspection between 11:45 p.m. To 12:15 a.m. he did not found the petitioner present on duty. The A.C.J.M. has also carried out a verification of these facts and he found that the report of Deputy Nazir dated 3.9.2013 is correct. In th