ANANDILAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Anandilal, by this writ petition, has challenged the validity of the order of his removal from service passed by the Governor vide document No. 11 dated December 30, 1968 with the prayer that the impugned order be quashed and he be reinstated. He has also prayed that the order passed by the Chief Justice dated July 6, 1963, suspending him may also be quashed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are in a nutshell as follows : A complaint was received by Hon'ble the Chief Justice against the petitioner, who was posted as Munsiff Magistrate, First Class, Nawa, that the petitioner had grossly misused his magisterial powers by issuing the warrant against one Ganpatia, who was responsible for getting the petitioner's father prosecuted before the Panchayat. At that time no case against Ganpatia was pending in the petitioner's court and, therefore, the allegation was that Ganpatia was illegally kept under detention for a week. THE complaint was sent for inquiry to the District Judge, Merta, who after making preliminary inquiry reported the matter to the High Court that the allegations made against the petitioner were not without foundation. THE Chief Justice then issued an order of suspension on July 6, 1963, under R 13 and 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called the'"'Rules of 1958") and sent the matter for inquiry to Hon'ble Mr. Justice C, B. Bhargava under rule 16(4) of these Rules. Two charges were framed by Justice Bhargava and the petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement of defence to the said charges. After making inquiry Mr. Justice Bhargava found the accused guilty of charge No. 1, i. e., misusing of his judicial power and proposed a penalty of removal or dismissal from service THE report of Mr Justice Bhargava was forwarded by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to the Governor for imposing the penalty on the petitioner as proposed by Mr. Justice Bhargava. A show cause notice under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution was issued to the petitioner by the Secretary to the Government proposing to inflict the penalty of removal or dismissal as suggested by Mr. Justice Bhargava and directed the petitioner to submit his reply to the Government. THE petitioner challenged the validity of the show cause notice by preferring a writ petition No. 1153 of 1964 in this Court mainly on the ground that Mr. Justice Bhargava was not competent to condact an inquiry as disciplinary authority- His main contention was that the disciplinary authority in a case of a judicial officer was the High Court, which according to Art. 216 of the Constitution means the Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint, and, therefore, according to the petitioner a Single Judge of the High Court even though he may be Chief Justice was not competent to initiate any disciplinary action against the member of the Judicial Service. He further contended that his case was never referred to the Full Court and, therefore, any action taken by the Governor issuing a show cause notice under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution on the basis of a report made by Mr. Justice Bhargava, was illegal.

(3.) THIS order has been challenged by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the Governor could not have inflicted any penalty on the basis of the report of Mr. Justice Bhargava, who was not competent to initiate the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner by framing charges and then making inquiry therein. According to the petitioner Mr. Justice Bhargava was not a disciplinary authority and, therefore, he could neither frame charges nor could he conduct the inquiry and recommend to the Government about the petitioner's removal from service and the subsequent acceptance of that report by the Full Court does not give any validity and cure the defects of that report which was from its very inception illegal. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order on the basis that it suffers from a fundamental defect of violating the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the Full Court, which considered the report of Mr. Justice Bhargava, did not allow the petitioner a chance of being heard personally, and that no disciplinary action could be taken against the petitioner for the act performed by him in a judicial capacity and since the warrant was issued by the petitioner for the arrest of Ganpatia in the discharge of his judicial function, his act was not subject to any disciplinary control of the High Court unless it was set aside by a competent judicial authority. It was also averred that the Full Court was not competent to validate the enquiry made by an incompetent authority by adopting his recommendation nor could the Governor accept such recommendations without going through the entire record, which was not submitted to him.