HANUMAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGEMERTA CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition seeks to have quashed the notice dt. 14.11.2005 Annexure-7, and charge sheet dt. 9.3.2006 Annexure-8, so also wants a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the departmental enquiry.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is, that he was appointed as L.D.C. in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kuchaman City. While so working a criminal case, for the offence under Section 465 I.P.C., was registered against him in the year 1981. Thereupon a departmental enquiry was conducted against him, in which the statement of the witnesses were recorded, in connection with the criminal case. Thereafter his services were terminated, vide order dt. 7.8.1981, on the ground, of work and conduct, having not been found to be satisfactory, and by treating the petitioner to be on probation. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 1774/1981, which came to be allowed on 29.1.1991, and the termination was set aside. This judgment has been produced as Annexure-2. Against this judgment Annexure-2, D.B. Civil Special Appeal was filed, which was also dismissed vide order dt. 20.4.1993. Then, a review petition was also dismissed vide order Annexure-4. As such the petitioner is working as L.D.C.

(3.) It is then alleged, that a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, being Criminal Case No. 544/1981, wherein it was found, that in admission form of one Manohar Singh, he used the rubber stamp which was not intended to be used as hire object, and the petitioner was given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Probation Act') and it was further held, that according to Section 12 of the Probation Act, the government service of the petitioner will not be adversely affected. Copy of this judgment has been produced as Annexure-5. Against this conviction, the petitioner filed appeal, but then the judgment was affirmed vide judgment dt. 12.7.2004, produced here as Annexure-6. It is in this sequence, that thereafter the petitioner was served with a notice Annexure-7, alleging that while working as L.D.C. in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nawa, for the purpose of procuring admission of One Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Dheer Singh, the petitioner forged the signature of the Presiding Officer, and fraudulently used the seal, for which he was prosecuted in the Criminal Case No. 635/85 (544/81), and wherein he has been found guilty for the offence under Section 465 I.P.C., which conviction was affirmed in appeal, and a revision filed against that order in the High Court was also dismissed as not pressed. It was then alleged that thus the petitioner has procured forged document, and put initial and seal of the Court, and thus committed forgery, therefore, he was called upon to show cause as to why the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules be not initiated against him. This being dt. 14.11.2005 has been produced as Annexure-7.