RAJ KAMAL GAUR Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in the present writ petition, is a Judicial Officer. THE writ petition has been filed by him to challenge the order of punishment awarded to him by the respondents after departmental proceedings. THE petitioner was imposed with a penalty of reversion from the post of Civil Judge (S. D.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he joined the Rajasthan Judicial Service (R. J. S.) on 19. 7. 1985 as Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Kishangarhbas, District Alwar. He was promoted to the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and was also granted senior scale in the year 1993. THEreafter the petitioner was placed in the selection scale from senior scale. THE petitioner claims that he continued to serve with the best of his sincerity and hard work. THE petitioner has claimed that while he was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) at Jodhpur he received a memorandum on 10. 4. 2000. In this memorandum an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (referred to hereinafter as ``the C. C. A. Rules, 1958) was proposed against him. THE statement of allegations alongwith charges framed was also served on him.

(3.) THE Enquiry Authority submitted the enquiry report on 28. 8. 2000. THE Enquiry Authority has concluded with the assumption that the petitioner had admitted all the allegations levelled against him, whereas the petitioner repeatedly denied the charges of committing any illegality or misconduct. It has been contended by the petitioner in his defence that appointment given to his close relative was not devoid of any rules and was only in the nature of temporary and urgent appointment which was made as per the authorisation. In this back-ground, it was absolutely improper to draw the conclusion that the petitioner had admitted the charges levelled against him. THE petitioner claims that the Enquiry Authority has relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. THE petitioner says that all the cases are distinguishable because the petitioner has different facts in his case.