JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner who was a member of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service and retired on 30.06.2006 as District Judge has preferred this writ petition questioning the punishment order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Governor of U.P. (Annexure-14) withholding 50 per cent of his pension on the recommendation of the High Court.

2. The petitioner as District Judge, Barabanki got conducted examination for the selection of class-III (including clerks and stenographers) and class-IV employees of the Judgeship for which purpose he constituted two independent committees of 5 and 3 members respectively under the Chairmanship of two different Senior Judicial Officers of the district.

3. An advertisement inviting applications for the purposes of the above recruitment was published on 30.07.2004 in the newspapers. The examination for class-III and class-IV posts were held on 29.09.2004 in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947/Rules for Recruitment of Ministerial to the Subordinate Offices, 1950 and the provisions of U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 respectively. The result of the class-III examination was prepared on 04.11.2004 and it was declared on the notice board on 05.11.2004. The result of the class-IV examination was prepared on 10.09.2004 and after sending a report to the High Court, the same was declared on 17.09.2004. The completion of the process of the selection for the above posts was duly notified on 27.11.2004 to the High Court.

4. The aforesaid selection was challenged by several persons by means of different writ petitions filed before the Lucknow Bench of this High Court. The said writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 7021 (S/S) of 2004 (Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. And others) along with connected petition were decided vide judgment and order dated 19.01.2006. The entire selection process including the select list and the consequential appointment of class-III and class-IV employees was quashed and cost of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed upon the petitioner.

5. The said judgment and order on appeal was partly modified vide the Division Bench decision dated 19.07.2006. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision quashing the select list of class-III and class-IV employees but the appointments of the Stenographers and Drivers were saved and the cost of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon the petitioner was deleted. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was accordingly modified with certain other little changes.

6. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 30.10.2008 by the High Court referring to the above judgment and orders. The petitioner was charged for misconduct as it was alleged that there was no transparency and fairness in the entire selection and the selection was an outcome of favouritism, nepotism, arbitrariness with malafide intention for extronious considerations. Along with the petitioner, similar charge-sheets were also given to the other judicial officers who were members of the committees responsible for conducting the recruitment examination of class-III and class-IV employees. A department Inquiry was conducted jointly against all the 6 officers including the petitioner. The inquiry report submitted on 22.09.2010 held all the officers including the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against them.

7. The Administrative Committee of the High Court accepted the inquiry report insofar as it related to the petitioner and directed it to be placed before the Full Court. However, in respect of the other officers, it was not accepted and the proceedings against them were dropped vide resolution dated 12.05.2011.

8. The Full Court in its meeting held on 11.02.2012 resolved for withholding 50 per cent of the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner with immediate effect as by that time the petitioner had retired. In respect to the remaining 5 officers, it was resolved that as they have been found gui