MOTILAL JAGETIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the order dated 28th April, 1993, passed in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 66/93 (Def.), whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh rejecting appellant's plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. on the ground that the plaint did not disclose cause of action and also the suit was barred under the provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit was filed against respondent No. 3 Manoharlal Soni also, who is admittedly not a Judicial Officer and, as such, he cannot get any protection of the provisions of the Act but the learned A.D.J., Chittorgarh as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court conveniently ignored this material fact and thus committed illegality in rejecting his plaint.

(3.) IT has been next argued by and on behalf of the appellant that admittedly, respondent No. 2 was the Presiding Officer of the Court of MJM, Chittorgarh and that respondent No. 3 was working under him as a clerk and that in order to give undue favour to the latter, strictures were passed against the appellant vide order dt. 10.7.91, which were baseless and unfounded and that those strictures were expunged by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order date 2.4.92. Thus, the respondent No. 2 had acted in order to unduly favour a party and was not acting as a judge and, therefore, he is not entitled for the protection of the provisions of the Act. For this, the case of Union of India and Ors. v. K.K. Dhawan reported in 1993 S.C.C. (L&S;) 325 has been cited. In that case, the respondent while working as Income Tax Officer completed certain assessments against number of assesses in an irregular manner with undue haste and apparently with a view to confer undue favour upon assessees concerned. A chargesheet was served on him u/r.14 of Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging that the respondent had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duly and exhibited the conduct unbecoming of a Govt. servant thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Against the said charge memorandum, the respondent preferred an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings and to consider his case for promotion on merits without resort to the sealed cover procedure. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Union of India to open the sealed cover immediately and implement the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and by a subsequent order, further held that the action taken by the respondent was quasi - judicial and should not have formed the basis of disciplinary action. The Union filed appeal wherein their lordships of the Apex Court referring to Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules of 1964 which requires that every Govt. servant shall at all time maintain absolute integrity; maintain devotion to duty; and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant have catalogued certain instances, wherein disciplinary action could be taken against an officer for the misconduct committed by him in exercise of his judicial or quasi -judicial powers and observed as under: