BHAGWAT SWAROOP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service. In the year 1967 he was posted as Magistrate, First Class at Shri Ganganagar. On July 4, 1967 one Lalkhan submitted an application under sec. 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the petitioner alleging that his wife Smt. Mima had been taken away by her father in his absence and without his consent and that his wife was kept in illegal confinement by her father. THE petitioner recorded the Statement of Lalkhan and issued a search warrant under section 100 of the Code directing that Smt. Mima, wife of Lalkhan should be recovered and should be produced before the petitioner in his court on July 13, 1967. It appears that Smt. Mima was recovered by the police and was produced before the petitioner on July 8, 1967 although it was a holiday, being the Second Saturday of the month and on that account his court was closed. But the petitioner is alleged to have recorded statement of Smt. Mima on that very day and set her free, directing that she could go wherever she liked according to her free will. A complaint appears to have been made in respect of the proceedings in the aforesaid case and as a result of which a disciplinary enquiry ensued against the petitioner. THE petitioner was given notice dated April 8, 1968 in respect of initiation of proceedings against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') alongwith a statement of allegations and a charge sheet. THE charge framed against the petitioner was that he exhibited lack of proper care and caution, impartiality and responsibility expected of a Magistrate in dealing with the aforesaid case under S. 100 of the Code and abused the process of law by issuing a search warrant for the recovery of Smt. Mima from the custody of her parents without taking proper evidence and further that when Smt. Mima was produced before the petitioner he held his court 'behind closed doors on a holiday,' and handed her over to Lalkhan without proper examination of the lady and without considering the counter claims of her parents. An enquiry was conducted into the matter by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan, who in his report dated March 24,1970 expressed the view that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved. THE State Government however, did not agree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in his report and came to the conclusion by its order dated February 25, 1971 that the petitioner exhibited lack of proper care and prudence in dealing with the aforesaid case under sec. 100 of the Code and abused the process of law by issuing a search warrant for the recovery of Smt. Mima from the custody of her parents without taking proper evidence in support of the application of Lalkhan. THE State Government also held that the petitioner did not exercise due care and caution expected of a Magistrate in dealing with the aforesaid case. THE petitioner was, therefore, found guilty of the charge framed against him and the State Government imposed a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect upon the petitioner. It was also ordered that the subsistence allowance already drawn by the petitioner during the period of suspension would only be payable to him for the period and the poriod of suspension would be treated as period spent on duty for the purposes of pension and increment. THE petitioner filed a review petition but the same was also rejected on July 5, 1971. THEreupon the present writ petition was filed in this Court.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order issued by the State Government of February 25, 1971 was net a speaking order and that the reasons for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him as also the reasons for the disagreement of the State Government with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in his report were not communicated to him. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner exercised judicial discretion in issuing the search warrant under sec. 100 of the Code and he should not have been penalised for exercising his judicial powers under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure even if the same was found defective in some respect. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel that the order passed by the State Government imposing penalty upon the petitioner was based on no evidence whatsoever.

(3.) FOR all that has been said above, I do not feel inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the present case and the writ petition consequently fails and dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. .