T R PARIHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a member of J&K State Judicial Service. He was initially appointed as a Munsiff and thereafter arose to the position of District and Sessions Judge. While being posted at Udhampur as District & Sessions Judge, Bar Association of that place on July 26,1983 passed a resolution against him levelling allegations: -

(2.) THE members resolved that fervent appeal be made to the Honâ„¢ble Chief Justice to inquire into the mis -deeds committed by the Sessions Judge and his immediate transfer from that place and they also decided not to attend his court till his removal from there. In pursuance of the above said resolution Honâ„¢ble Chief Justice directed Vigilance Commissioner (Judl) to conduct an inquiry into the matter. The Vigilance Commissioner submitted a preliminary report on Aug. 6,1983 and suggested for immediate transfer of the petitioner from Udhampur. This report was, however, considered incomplete and Vigilance Commissioner was directed to hold yet another inquiry into the matter in detail. Accordingly the Vigilance Commissioner once again went to Udhampur and after holding detailed inquiry submitted report on August 17,1983. After going through and considering the two reports of the Vigilance Commissioner (Judl) the court was of the opinion that prima facie serious allegations of mis -conduct had been made out against the petitioner and, as such, it was decided that disciplinary action should be initiated against him and he be charge -sheeted. It was further decided that pending disciplinary proceedings petitioner should be placed under suspension forthwith. Petitioner was accordingly placed under suspension vide order issued on August 19,1983. On Sept., 16,1983 petitioner made a representation against the order of suspension but the court decided that in view of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him his request for reinstatement could not be granted.

(3.) A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 19 -11 -1983 issued by the Registrar High Court which was replied by the petitioner. The court, however, on March 16,1984, after considering the reply of the petitioner, decided to hold a regular inquiry against him and appointed Justice G.M. Mir (as he then was), as Inquiry Justice Mir. Justice Shah submitted report on Feb, 4,1985. The court considered the said report and on 17 -3 -1985 resolved to issue a notice to the Officer. Justice Mir, however, showed his inability to conduct inquiry because of some personal reasons and of his retirement and, as such, the Court vide resolution dated 13 -7 -1984 appointed Late Justice M.A. Shah in place of petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Such notice was issued to the petitioner returnable within three weeks. On April 10,1985 he was granted four weeks further time to submit his reply.