S B BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In ihis petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 17-10-1997 by which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Additional District Judge to the post of Civil Judge, Class I. In order to appreciate the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order few facts need mention which are stated infra.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge, Class II in 1979. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Civil Judge, Class I in 1987 and was further promoted to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate in 1990. The petitioner, thereafter, was promoted to higher judicial service in 1992 and posted as Additional District Judge, Khurai, District Sagar. The petitioner joined at Khurai on 27-9-1992. The petitioner on 13-1-1995 issued a notice to one D.P. Thakur, Advocate to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code for fabricating false evidence. It appears that liar Association, Khurai look a decision to boycott the Court of the petitioner and delegation of Senior Advocates along with the President and the office-bearers met the District and Sessions Judge, Sagar on 17-1-1995 and informed him that since the said D.I'. Thakur appeared on behalf of accused in proceeding under Section 157 of the Indian Penal Code and got the bail for the accused and since the petitioner was personally interested in the said case that is why the show-cause notice was issued to said D.P. Thakur with a view to wreak vengeance.

(3.) Accordingly, the District and Sessions Judge was informed that member of the Bar Association have taken a decision to boycott the Court of the petitioner. The District and Sessions Judge, Sagar vide communication dated 18-1-1995 apprised the High Court about the decision taken by the members of the Bar Association, Khurai. A complaint was also made by the Bar Association. Khurai to the Chief Justice. Thereupon Shri S.S. Saraf, the then Registrar (Vigilance) visited Khurai and conducted a preliminary enquiry. A show-cause notice dated 12-5-1995 along with article of charges, list of documents and witnesses was issued to the petitioner by which the petitioner was aske'd to file his reply to the charge-sheet within a fortnight. The petitioner on receipt of the charge-sheet by communication dated 23-5-1995 demanded the copy of the statement of witnesses as well as the documents on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued to him to file the reply.