Rajan Roy, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the High Court and perused the records.

2. Both these writ petitions arise out of the same cause, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

3. The petitioner herein is a retired employee of the High Court. In the year 1994 he is said to have been working as Ad-hoc Bench Secretary when an order dated 13.09.1994 is said to have been passed by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 50 of 1993. It is said that the said order after being transcribed could not be signed by the Hon'ble Judges who were part of the Division Bench and the file was sent as it is to the concerned F.A.F.O. Section. It is said that after 4-5 months of passing of the said order, the certified copy was applied by one of the parties to the case, whereupon the said file was sent by the F.A.F.O. Section to the Copying Section whereupon the omission of signatures was noticed by one Mr. Jai Kishan Soni copyist, who submitted a report in this regard. Based on his report, an explanation was sought from Mr. Rajiv Kamal, who was the in-charge of the F.A.F.O. Section and the petitioner who was the Ad-hoc Bench Secretary. Thereafter, it is said that a preliminary inquiry was ordered. In the preliminary inquiry which was conducted by the Joint Registrar (Listing) Shri S.K. I. Naqvi, the petitioner was exonerated. Inspite of it, subsequently on 09.03.1999, while the petitioner was still in service, an order was passed on the file by the competent authority taking a decision for initiation of a regular inquiry against the petitioner, but, it is an admitted fact that no charge sheet could be issued to him and he retired from service of the High Court on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2000. More than two and half years after his retirement i.e. 08.10.2002 a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition No. 6627(S/S) of 2006. The said charge sheet contains the following charges: -

"(1) That you on 13.9.1994 posted/ acting as Bench Secretary, Court No. 1, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow being duty bound to obtain the signatures of the Hon'ble Judges of the Bench on the orders/judgments in dereliction of duty carelessly and negligently did not obtain signature of the Hon'ble Judges on the order dated 13.9.1994 in F.A.F.O. No. 50 of 1993 State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Shitala Prasad Pandey even on 2.5.1995 when Mr. Rajiv Kamal, U.D.A. brought this file to you and drew your attention towards this, and thereby failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.

Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:

(1) Statement of Mr. Rajiv Kamal, U.D.A. Group Incharge, F.A.F.O. Section, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

(2) Statement of Mr. Jai Kishan Soni, L.D.A, Copying Section Pending, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

(3) Statement of Mr. G.P. Verma, Section Officer, Copying Section Pending, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

(4) Your own statement.

(2) That on 2.5.1995 when you were posted/ acting as Bench Secretary, Court No. 1 Mr. Rajiv Kamal, U.D.A., Group Incharge, F.A.F.O. Section brought the aforesaid record to you and requested you to obtain signatures of the Hon'ble Judges on the order dated 13.9.1994, you did not obtain the signatures and asked Mr. Rajiv Kamal to come again on 4.5.1995. Later on the signatures of the Hon'ble Judges on the order dated 13.9.1994 were found to have been forged. You are prima facie responsible for forging the signatures of Hon'ble Judges on the order dated 13.9.1994 and thus, committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.

Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:

(1) Statement of Mr. Rajiv Kamal, U.D.A. Group Incharge, F.A.F.O. Section,