1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.3.2008 initiating disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner broadly on the ground that he has approached High Court against the order of transfer passed by the State Government as an interim management. According to petitioner's counsel, the controversy is covered by the basic structure doctrine and the petitioner's right to approach the Court for justice cannot be treated adversely by the Government.

3. By an order dated 29.6.2007, the petitioner was transferred from Bareilly to Lucknow. In consequence thereof, he submitted his joining report on 7.7.2007. The order of transfer was modified by another transfer order dated 31.7.2007 which was the subject matter of dispute before this Court in Writ Petition No.977 (S/B) of 2007. A Division Bench of this Court had stayed the order of transfer dated 31.7.2007 to the extent it related to the petitioner. In consequence thereof, the petitioner continued at Lucknow.

4. It appears that the State Government was not pleased wit