MURARI LAL GUPTA SON OF LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 10.05.2005, whereby the penalty of censure has been imposed on him.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 read with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Services of Staff) Rules, 1953 along with statement of charge. It was alleged in the statement of allegation that while the petitioner was working as L.D.C. in criminal section, he remained negligent in discharging his duty and failed to communicate the order dated 21.07.1997 passed by the High Court in S.B.Civil Criminal Misc. Petition No. 30/1997 to the trial court - Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gangapurcity. It was alleged that according to the order of the High Court, the trial court was directed to dispose of the case within the stipulated period of two months. Thereafter, in another S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 782/1997 (Ramphool v. State of Rajasthan), the High Court vide order dated 10.11.1997 had observed that the earlier order passed on 21.01.1997 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 30/1997 was not complied with in its true spirit by the trial court and consequently, High Court ordered that copy of the order be placed before the Registrar to make an enquiry in the service record of the concerned Magistrate.

(3.) It was alleged that the petitioner was thoroughly negligent in discharging of his duty and failed to communicate the order passed by the High Court on 25.01.1997 and there was general practice to communicate the order of the High Court immediately to the lower court and this practice was given complete go-bye by the petitioner, which hampered the judicial process. It was alleged that in consequence of such act of the petitioner, the Judicial Officer concerned suffered mental agony and torture. All above acts amounted to negligent and dereliction of duty treating them to a gross misconduct.