UGAM RAJ BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Ugam Raj Bhandari, the appellant in this Special Appeal was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. In January 1969, he was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. While working as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, the appellant was trying Civil Suit No. 108/l961 -4/1968 Mansukhlal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. By letter dated September 1, 1969, the Registrar of the High Court informed the appellant that it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.A. Rules) and in that connection copies of the memorandum and the statements of allegations and charge sheet dated September 1, 1969 consisting of two charges, drawn by Shri Justice Jagat Narayan, who was the Administrative Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at that he was also sent to the appellant. In reply to the aforesaid communication, the appellant submitted a written statement of his defence. The said written statement of the appellant was considered by Shri Justice Jagat Narayan, who has taken over as the Chief Justice of the High Court by that time, and by his order dated 10th January, 1970, Hon'ble the Chief Justice, held that he was satisfied that it was necessary, to proceed further with the departmental inquiry against the appellant. By his order dated January 10, 1970, Hon'ble the Chief Justice nominated Shri Justice P.N. Shinghal as the Disciplinary Authority in the case Shi Justice Shinghal thereafter conducted an inquiry and submitted his report dated 4th March, whereby he found that charge No. 1 had not been proved against the appellant but that charge No. 2 had been fully proved against the appellant. The report of the Disciplinary Authority (Shri Justice Shinghal) was considered by the High 'Court and the High Court recommended to the Government that the penalty of removal from service be imposed upon the appellant. After taking into consideration, the recommendations of the High Court, the State Government provisionally decided to remove the appellant from service and a notice dated July 9, 1970 was issued whereby the appellant was required to show cause why the penalty of removal from service be not imposed upon him In response to the said show cause notice, the appellant submitted his reply dated 30th September, 1970 The matter was referred, again to the High and the High Court, after considering the reply of the appellant, expressed the opinion that the appellant should be removed from service The matter was also referred to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission which took a different view and advised that a lesser penalty of reduction in rank would be sufficient. The State Government disagreed with the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and, agreeing with the opinion of the High Court, the Governor passed an order dated 4th December, 1974, removing the appellant from service.

(2.) WHILE the matter was under the consideration of the State Government the appellant, on 26 -11 -1974 filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ or a direction, quashing the under of suspension dated 10th January, 1970, the inquiry proceedings and the report of the High Court and further proceedings in the matter. During the pendency of the writ petition of the appellant, the order dated 4th December 1974 removing him from service was passed by the State Government. In the writ petition of the appellant, a notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why writ petition should not be admitted and in response to the said show cause notice, a reply was filed on behalf of the respondents. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid reply filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein he also prayed for quashing of for the order dated 4th December, 1974.

(3.) ALI the aforesaid contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition of, the appellant by his order dated December 16, 1974. The learned Single Judge has held that the publication of the Resolution dated May 6, 1967, passed by the Full Court was not necessary and that in view of the said Resolution the powers of the Full Court as regards various proceedings in respect of disciplinary action against subordinate judicial officers had been delegated to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Administrative Judge, the fudge nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Committee of Judges of the Court and that the Hon'ble Chief Justice was competent to pass the order dated January 10, 1970 suspending the appellant and nominating Shri Justice P.N. Shinghal as the Disciplinary Authority. The learned Single Judge further held that there was no denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to defend himself before the Disciplinary Authority as a result of the appellant not being allowed to engage the services of a lawyer in as much as the petitioner was assisted by a judicial officer of 12 years standing. As regards the complaint abut the rejection of his application for examination of complainant Sadhu Ram and Thanwar Das as court witnesses the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant could not insist on the examination of the aforesaid persons as court witnesses and that the appellant was free to produce them as his witnesses and that he did not choose to do so. With regard to the production of the account books of Mansukhlal the learned Single Judge has observed that Mansukhlaj had been produced as a witness on behalf of the defence and that it was open to the appellant to get his account books produced tout he failed to do so and that there was nothing on record to short that the petitioner made any request before the Disciplinary Authority that the account books of Mansukhlal should be taken in evidence The learned Single Judge was farther of the view that the Disciplinary Authority had given good and sufficient reasons in his order rejecting the application of the appellant for adjournment of the hearing and that the counsel for the appellant bad failed to show that any prejudice was caused to the appellant by the refusal of adjournment by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned Single Judge has also observed that in order to arrive at the finding with regard to charge No. 2 the Disciplinary Authority was entitled to rely on direct as well as circumstantial evidence and that the report of the Disciplinary Authority shows that on the basis of the evidence on record and from this circumstantial evidence referred to by him, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the appellant had received the articles in question without making any payment for them and that it could not be said that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence. The learned Single Judge has also held that the reply of the respondents shows that Shri Justice Bhargava was informed of the meeting of the Full Court in which' the report of the Disciplinary Authority was discussed and that he bid attended the meeting which was held on March 16, 1970 but did not attend the adjourned meeting on March 18, 1970 and that what is required is that all the Judges should have been informed of the meeting and that it is not necessary that they should all attend the meeting of the Full Court provided the quorum is complete. According to the learned Single Judge, in view of the reply of the respondents, the contention of the appellant that Shri Justice Bhargava had no intimation of the Full Court meeting held on March 18, 1970 could not be accepted.