JAGJIWANCHAND BHANDARI Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner Jagjiwanchand Bhandari was employed as Senior Bench Reader in this High Court at Jaipur Bench on 25. 5. 85 Since a disciplin-ary proceeding was contemplated against Shri Bhandari, the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, placed him under suspension vide order Annex. 1 dated 25 5 85. By this order, he was, inter alia, required to mark his attendance daily in the office of Addl. Registrar Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. By a subsequent order Annex. 2 dated 17. 7. 85, the head quarters of Shri Bhandari was shifted from Jaipur to Jodhpur, On 29. 1. 86, the petitioner was served a memo Annex. 3 where by he was asked to explain why he had not marked his attendance daily in the office in disregard of the directions given to him. By Annex. 7 dated 11. 4. 86 the petitioner submitted that when his headquarters was shifted from Jaipur to Jodhpur. there was no direction to attend office and as such, there was no non compliance of the order from his side. This explanation was not found to be satisfactory by the Registrar, who served charge sheet upon the petitioner along with memo Annex. 4 whereby following charges were framed against him: - 1. That Shri Jagjiwanchand Bhandari Senior Bench Reader of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur was suspended vide this office order No. Estt/hc/85/255 dated 25. 5. 85 and was directed that he shall regularly attend the office to prove his presence on Head Quarter and mark his attendance daily in the office of the Additional Registrar, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. THEreafter in continuation to this office order No. Estt/hc/85/305 dated 17. 7. 85 the headquarter of the above said Shri Jagjiwanchand Bhandari was shifted from Jaipur to Jodhpur during the suspension. That Shri Jagjiwan Chand Bhandari neither attended the office regularly nor marked attendance daily in the office and thus failed to comply with the office order dated 25. 5. 85 and disobeyed the directions contained therein, This act of Shri Jagjiwanchand Bhandari comes within the mischief of disobedience of the direction issued by this office.

(2.) THAT on 29. 1. 86 a memo No. 712 was issued to him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for non compliance of the order dated 25. 5 85. Inspire of all this Shri Jagjiwanchand Bhandari did not comply the office order with regard to making his attendance daily in this Registrary to prove his presence at headquarters. THAT Shri Jagjiwanchand Bhandari has exhibited gross negligence in not compiling with the above said direction. This act of Shri Jagjiwanchand Bhandari amounts to gross negligence. " This charge sheet was accompanied with a statement of allegations on the basis of which, charges had been framed against the petitioner. 2. Upon the aforesaid charges, an enquiry was made against the petitioner and both the charges were hold to be proved with the result that the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penally of reduction to a lower post i. e. reduction from the post of Senior Bench Reader to the post of Bench Reader vide Annex. 8 dated 17. 12. 87. The petitioner went in appeal against this order to Hon'ble the Chief Justice. This appeal was dismissed vide order Annex. 9. Agr-ieved, the petitioner has come by way of this writ petition to this court.

(3.) WE have given our careful and earnest consideration to the rival cont-entions and we find that the contention of the petitioner is not well founded. A bare reading of the aforesaid clause of rule 12 goes to show that the rule confers powers both on the Hon'ble Chief Justice as also on the Registrar and the two powers are concurrent. The power of the Registrar is, however, subject to any special order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, which he may be pleased to pass in that behalf. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the Registrar had, in the absence of any special order to the contrary passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, full powers to impose the various penalties in this rule, such powers being concurrent with that of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Hence, we find that this contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected outright.