RAVINDRA NATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, Ravindra Nath, has assailed the order (Ex. 46) dated 16th March, 1984 passed by the Governor of Rajasthan where by the petitioner has been dismissed from service by way of punishment for misconduct.

(2.) THE petitioner was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RFDS). During the period from October, 1980 to February, 1981 he was posted as District and Sessions Judge, Merta. A complaint was made by one Jorawarmal against the petitioner and on the said complaint a preliminary inquiry was conducted by M.C. Jain, J. After the said preliminary inquiry it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the petitioner was suspended by order (Ex 2) dated 2nd December, 1981. The Chief Justice nominated Dr. K.S. Sidhu J. as the disciplinary authority to hold the inquiry and the disciplinary authority issued a memorandum (Ex. 3) dated 29th January, 1982 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (here in after referred to as 'the CCA Rules') and the petitioner was required to submit a written statement of his defence within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum and also to state whether he desired to be heard in person and to furnish the names and addresses of the witnesses, if any, he wished to call in support of his defence avid to furnish a list of documents if any which he wished to produce in support of his defence. The said memorandum was accompanied by the statement of charges (Ex. 4) and the statement of allegations (Ex. 5) on the basis of which the charge was framed. The charge (Ex. 4) was as under:

(3.) THE petitioner did not submit the written statement of defence in reply to the charge. On 8th June, 1982 the disciplinary authority recorded plea of the petitioner wherein the petitioner denied the charge. The petitioner denied that he had demanded Rs. 15,000/ - from Jorawar Maland also denied that he had asked Jorawarmal to pay Rs. 5,000/ - to Jagdish Nai and told him that no writing should be executed. He denied the knowledge of the bearer cheque for Rs. 5,000/ - being given by Jorawarmal to Jagdish Nai on October 17, 1980 and the same being encashed by Jagdish Nai. He also denied that Jorawarmal got verified from the petitioner regarding the receipt of the amount of the cheque. The petitioner also denied the allegation that he had called Jorawarmal at his residence on 3rd or 5th February, 1981 and demanded the payment of Rs. 10,000/ - from him and expressed his ignorance whether Jorawar Malhad paid Rs. 7,000/ - to Jagdish Nai on 5th February, 1981 and got a promissory note executed from him in favour of his son Dev Karan. The petitioner also denied the receipt of the notice or telegraphic notice from Jorawarmal on 18th February, 1981 regarding refund of the amount of Rs. 12,000/ -and also denied the allegation that he had expressed displeasure to Jorawarmal regarding telegraphic communication mentioned above. The petitioner also denied that he had promised to refund the amount of Rs. 12,000/ - and stated that he did not receive any telephonic call from Jorawar Malat Pali about payment of any money from him. He also denied the receipt of any registered notice dated 5th March, 1981 purporting to have been sent by Jorawarmal Soni and stated that the material on which the charge was framed, is fabricated.