RAHUL LALITBHAI TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rahul Lalitbhai Trivedi 'the petitioner 'a Judicial Officer was appointed as Civil Judge (J.D.)- Class-II vide Government Notification dated 13.03.2002 in the basic pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500. The petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the averments made in paras-4.11, 4.12, 4.13 ad 4.14 of the petition, wherein averments and contentions are raised about the inquiry and also about his limited role with regard so-called irregularities alleged against him. For illustration, in para-4.11, the petitioner has set out the facts pertaining to the evidence of witness No.1 Shri Pravinchandra Shivlalbhai Patel, who in his cross-examination has stated that, '..... case file is to be kept with the Bench Clerk, till complete Rojnama (Court proceedings) is written; that there is no signature of the petitioner; that it is possible for Clerk to place performa of deposition, performa of further statement and form of judgment; that Clerk can place the further statement without filling up details in the record; that Judge is writing judgment by giving dictation to the stenographer and diary meant for dictation is to be kept by stenographer and no such diary is recovered; that notes are being made about when dictation was given, how many pages were dictated and to whom dictation was given, no such notes are being collected; that the concerned Clerk was never questioned by him or the concerned District Judge; that he has not received any complaint with respect to the present petitioner about misplacement of papers nor any inquiry is made nor any application is received for getting certified copy of the judgment'. This witness has also stated that, 'the concerned Clerk Shri Patel has never complained to the District Judge that Shri Trivedi is not signing proceedings and judgments; that it is the responsibility of the Clerk to obtain signature; that monthly statement is to be prepared by the Office clerk and the same is to be sent to the District Judge after obtaining the signature of the concerned Judge and that disposal diary is kept by Board Clerk but he could not say whether disposal diary is recovered or not'. It is a matter of record that the disposal diary is not there on the record.

(3.) On 10.03.2011, further statement of the petitioner was recorded. Thereafter, on 23.03.2011, the petitioner filed his written statement vide Exh.149 and finally, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.03.2011, a copy of which was sent to the petitioner with forwarding letter dated 28.04.2011, which was received by the petitioner on 07.05.2011. The petitioner then received notice dated 28.04.2011 regarding show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed his written statement on 27.06.2011, wherein the petitioner submitted, 'that there is no dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner and there is no any act of petitioner which tantamount to unbecoming of Judicial Officer; that the charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to be proved' that the findings given vide paras 92 to 98 are only on presumption, without any cogent evidence'. The petitioner tendered clarification with respect to all the evidences and it was specifically mentioned in para-7 of the written statement that:-