1. Heard Mr Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harsh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shishir Jain, learned counsel for High Court and District Court.

2. The writ petition challenges the order dated 21.12.1998 removing the petitioner from service and the appellate order dated 01.12.1999 rejecting his departmental appeal. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner died on 07.04.2006 and his legal heirs were substituted. The amended reliefs include consequential service benefits and compassionate appointment.

3. The petitioner was appointed to a Class IV post in 1977 and, after promotion, was working as Deputy Nazir in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Purwa, Unnao. The disciplinary proceedings arose from an incident stated to have occurred at about 9:00 p.m. on 23.11.1994 near the residence of the then Munsif Magistrate, Purwa.

4. A preliminary inquiry was completed on 18.02.1997. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.02.1997 and was served with four charges on 04.07.1997. The four articles of charge, stated in substance, were:

“Charge no. 1.—That, at about 9:00 p.m. on the night in question, when Home Guard Jagdish Narayan Yadav stopped the petitioner from knocking at the door and repeatedly ringing the bell at the residence of the Munsif Magistrate, the petitioner abused him in filthy language, snatched away his blanket and otherwise misbehaved with him.”

“Charge no. 2.—That the petitioner came to the residence of M.R.Siddiqui, the then Munsif Magistrate, in an intoxicated and half-naked condition and abused him in filthy language.”

“Charge no. 3.—That, after orderly Shiv Nath and office peon Ram Sewak had taken the petitioner from the residence of the Munsif Magistrate towards his own residence, he returned in an intoxicated condition, abused the judicial officer between the court premises and the residence, created a disturbance and spread alarm.”

“Charge no. 4.—That the petitioner was found near the residence of the Munsif Magistrate, intoxicated and hurling abuses; the patrolling police apprehended him, took him to Kotwali Purwa and had him medically examined; he was detained for the night in proceedings under Section 34 of the Police Act and released the following day on furnishing a personal bond.”

5. The petitioner denied the charges. He asserted that the proceedings were retaliatory and set up a different account of the incident. He also sought the examination of the medical officer, police personnel and defence witnesses.

6. In the departmental inquiry, M.R. Siddiqui, the complainant judicial officer, Constable Kaushal Kishore, Mangal, Uma Shanker, Satish Chandra Kanaujia and Rajendra Kumar Srivastava were examined. The petitioner was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine them. Uma Shanker was examined at the petitioner's request. Notice was issued to Shiv Nath, but he did not appear. The inquiry officer also made attempts to secure the presence of the medical officer and the police officer concerned, but they were not produced.

7. By report dated 29.10.1998, the inquiry officer held charge no. 1 not proved and charge nos. 2, 3 and 4 proved. The inquiry officer thereafter proposed removal from service. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice on 21.11.1998, submitted his reply on 02.12.1998 and was personally heard on 21.12.1998. The District Judge accepted the findings and, by order dated 21.12.1998, imposed the punishment of removal.

8. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 11.02.1999 under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976. The Inspecting Judge rejected the appeal on 01.12.1999. The decision was communicated on 16.12.1999.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry rests upon unproved documents. Neither the doctor who is stated to have medically examined the petitioner nor the police officer who prepared the relevant p