JAI VIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of punishment dated 17th January, 2006 (Annexure-1) as well as inquiry report dated 14th September, 2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Vide impugned order dated 17th January, 2006 passed by State Government a major penalty of reduction in rank, i.e., from substantive rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been inflicted upon the petitioner. A further relief in the nature of mandamus has been sought for commanding the respondents not to take any further action either in furtherance of or as a consequence of the impugned order and to grant and restore all benefits for which the petitioner was entitled but for the impugned punishment awarded to him vide Order dated 17th January, 2006.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Munsif [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] in the year 1980. THEreafter he was promoted on the next higher post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) substantively in the year 1990. He was further promoted to the cadre of Higher Judicial Service in the year 2000, under Rule 22 (3) of U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as '1975 Rules'). On all these posts the petitioner worked with utmost devotion, sincerity, integrity and in accordance with well established judicial norms. And to the best of his knowledge, during the entire period of about 26 years of his service, the work and conduct of the petitioner has been unblemished. No complaint, whatsoever, was ever brought to the notice of the petitioner. THE petitioner understands and believes that the Hon'ble High Court granted to the petitioner promotion to the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) substantively and to the post of Additional District Judge in the cadre of U. P. Higher Judicial Service under Rule 22 (3) of the 1975 Rules after careful, appropriate and effective evaluation of the merit of his work and conduct including efficiency, honesty and integrity reflected on its record. All of a sudden, without any material the petitioner has been presumed to be dishonest in performing his judicial duties on extraneous consideration or anxiety to unduly favour a party and thereby guilty of misconduct and a charge sheet dated 25.10.2004 was served upon the petitioner on 16.11.2004 vide letter dated 28.10.2004 through District Judge, Pilibhit where the petitioner was working as Additional District Judge. A true copy of the communication dated 28.10.2004 alongwith charge-sheet dated 25.10.2004 is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. By this charge memo an allegation was levelled against the petitioner that on 16.1.2001 while working as IVth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, he had decided a reference case without proper reference and thereby unduly favoured the claimant in the said decision, against all judicial norms and propriety for extraneous consideration, thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U. P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 1956 Rules) and the petitioner was asked to file written reply within ?tipulated time. In response to the said charge-sheet the petitioner has submitted his written reply on 20.1.2005 through proper channel, a true copy whereof is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Before the Hon'ble Enquiry Judges also the petitioner has submitted a written submission dated 3.9.2005. A true copy whereof is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. THEreafter Hon'ble Enquiry Judges have held inquiry against the petitioner and submitted their inquiry report dated 14.9.2005 holding the petitioner guilty of charge levelled in the charge-sheet. A true copy of inquiry report is on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition. THEreupon the Registrar (Confidential) High Court, Allahabad vide letter dated 21.9.2005 has invited the comments of the petitioner against the findings of Hon'ble Enquiry Judges, in response to which the petitioner has submitted his comments dated 22.10.2005 through proper channel, a true copy whereof is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. THE said inquiry report was approved in Full Court meeting of this Court and the penalty of reduction in rank was recommended thereby to the State Government. THEreupon while acting upon the said recommendation the State Government has passed the impugned order reducing the petitioner in rank from his substantive post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), hence this petition.

(3.) IT is further stated in the writ petition that Wing Commander P. D. Bali did not accept the offer of compensation made to him through the awards dated 7.12.1990 and 10.8.1997 as he was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered to him and on 8.9.1997 the Wing Commander P. D. Bali submitted an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Addl. Collector (L.A.) (Irrigation) Ghaziabad for making reference before the Court for determination of compensation of land as well as trees and superstructure standing on the land. IT is pointed out that Wing Commander P. D. Bali had never applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of the determination of compensation offered to him through award dated 7.12.1990 which fact is admitted on record by the Additional Collector in his referral order passed under Section 19 of the Act as well as by E.W. '1', Sri Rajendra Kumar Tyagi, Legal Assistant of the Ghaziabad Development Authority before the Hon'ble Enquiry Judges, presumably, he waited for finality of award which was accomplished on the delivery of the supplementary award dated 10.8.1997. The claim of Wing Commander P. D. Bali under Section 18 of the Act, for determination by the Court, was referred to by the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Ghaziabad. A true copy of the referral order is on record as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Vide his judgment and order dated 16.1.2001, the petitioner decided the reference. He decided the objections of Wing Commander P. D. Bali on the basis of oral evidence produced by the parties and the documentary evidence in the shape of examplers produced by Wing Commander P. D. Bali alone. No documentary evidence was produced either on behalf of the State Government or on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad leaving the documentary evidence produced by Wing Commander P. D. Bali unrebutted. The fact that no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of State Government or Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad has also been admitted by E.W. '1' Sri Rajendra Kumar Tyagi before the Hon'ble Enquiry Judges. However, while deciding the reference, the petitioner kept in mind the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 as well as other relevant provisions of the Act and the guidance given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble Privy Council and the Hon'b?e High Courts. The petitioner observed all judicial norms and propriety and decided the objection of the claimant Wing Commander P. D. Bali without any other consideration much less any extraneous consideration as inferred and presumed in the enquiry report dated 14th September, 2005 without any basis. In the date events chart filed in the writ petition, it is shown that claimant has filed First Appeal No. 365 of 2001 Wing Commander P. D. Bali v. State of U. P. and others against the decision rendered by the petitioner in L.A.R. No. 624 of 1997 and Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad has also filed First Appeal No. 466 of 2002 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Wing Commander P. D. Bali against the same decision before this Court.