AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to him which was issued on 18/9/2015 by the order of the Governor of Rajasthan; under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Administration. In the departmental inquiry, the charge found proved against the petitioner was that he had entertained 2nd bail petition and granted bail to the accused Satyanarayan who was facing murder trial, though he had knowledge that the bail petition filed by the said accused was dismissed by the High Court and a transfer petition seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.25 of 2009 was pending before the High Court. The petitioner has challenged the very basis of instituting the disciplinary proceeding against him and has raised manifold grounds to assail the punishment order dtd. 18/9/2015.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangaria and was seized with Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.87 of 2010 filed by accused Satyanarayan seeking bail pending the trial in Sessions Case No.25 of 2009. Previously, he had rejected the bail petition filed by the said accused vide order dtd. 23/1/2010. This order refusing bail to him was taken to the High Court by Satyanarayan in S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.981 of 2010 and that was dismissed on 11/5/2010. The complainant appeared in the proceeding of 2nd bail petition and sought adjournment on the ground that he had moved a petition in the High Court for transfer of the sessions case from the petitioner's Court. The petitioner however heard and allowed 2nd bail petition and granted bail to Satyanarayan on 4/6/2010. This order granting bail to Satyanarayan was challenged by the complainant in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.26 of 2010 and the bail granted to Satyanarayan was cancelled by the High Court vide order dtd. 23/11/2011 and this bail cancellation order was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Later on, File No. Estt. B2 (iii)138/2013 was moved for an inquiry against the petitioner on the direction of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court and an inquiry was caused in the matter. According to the petitioner, the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) was improper and illegal and was conducted behind his back. Before the competent authority, the petitioner therefore raised an objection that no preliminary inquiry as contemplated under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958') was conducted and he was not supplied any information that an inquiry officer has been appointed to inquire into the complaint against him. However, the explanation offered by the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and a memorandum of charge was served upon him on 26/9/2013. In the disciplinary inquiry, the allegation levelled against the petitioner was that of committing gross misconduct, judicial indiscipline and impropriety. He was further alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and dignity of the office. The imputation in connection to the charge of extraneous consideration was to the effect that there was no substantial change in the circumstances after the dismissal of 1st bail petition vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10 of 2010 and he allowed 2nd bail petition for improper motives and granted bail to Satyanarayan who was facing charge under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.25 of 2009. On these allegations, two charges were framed against the petitioner and, in support thereof, the complainant Atma Ram was produced in the domestic inquiry and a few documents were laid in evidence to support the charges so framed. Those charges were framed in the following language :-

(3.) In the disciplinary inquiry, the petitioner denied the allegation that he had passed the bail order under any fear or favour. He endeavoured to justify his action in taking up 2nd bail petition on the ground that till 6/5/2010 when the transfer petition was filed in the High Court there was no complaint against him, co-accused Savitri Devi was already enlarged on bail and the bail petition was to be dealt with and decided expeditiously. He further pointed out that the bail petition of Satyanarayan was dismissed as not pressed and it was not an order passed on merits by the High Court. Secondly, the complainant was granted opportunities on 7/5/2010, 24/5/2010 and 25/5/2010 but he did not produce any order of the High Court passed in the transfer petition.