The High Court has the power to initiate and hold disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer and the said power cannot be exercised by the State Government.

Headnote:
The petitioner, a District & Sessions Judge, was dismissed from service by way of punishment for misconduct. He challenged the order of dismissal on various grounds, including the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, the validity of the charge, the denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself, the perverse and baseless nature of the findings, the issuance of the second show-cause notice, and the breach of an undertaking given before the court. The court examined each ground in detail and concluded that the petitioner's arguments lacked merit.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a District & Sessions Judge, was dismissed from service by way of punishment for misconduct. He challenged the order of dismissal on various grounds, including the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, the validity of the charge, the denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself, the perverse and baseless nature of the findings, the issuance of the second show-cause notice, and the breach of an undertaking given before the court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disciplinary authority had jurisdiction to hold the inquiry, the charge was valid, the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, the findings were not perverse or baseless, the second show-cause notice was properly issued, and there was no breach of the undertaking given before the court.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary authority had jurisdiction to hold the inquiry? 2. Whether the charge was valid? 3. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself? 4. Whether the findings were perverse or baseless? 5. Whether the second show-cause notice was properly issued? 6. Whether there was a breach of the undertaking given before the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the disciplinary authority had jurisdiction to hold the inquiry because the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto, including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge, is vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court held that the charge was valid because it was based on a complaint made by a litigant and was supported by evidence. 3. The court held that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself because he was provided with copies of the documents and statements on which the charge was based, he was allowed to inspect the original documents, he was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer, and he was allowed to produce witnesses in his defense. 4. The court held that the findings were not perverse or baseless because they were based on evidence and were supported by the record. 5. The court held that the second show-cause notice was properly issued because the disciplinary authority was competent to impose any of the penalties enumerated in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules except the penalty of removal and dismissal from service. 6. The court held that there was no breach of the undertaking given before the court because the undertaking was not continued in the order sheets of the various dates after November 22, 1983.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's arguments lacked merit.

JUDGMENT

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 & 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 & 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:

"That while working as Distt. and Sessions Judge, Merta you either your self or in the alternative through Shri Jagdish Nai, received a sum of Rs. 5000/- on 17-10-80 and Rs. 7000/- on 5-12-1981 in all a sum of Rs. 12000/- from one Jorawar Malsoni by way of illegal gratification as a consideration for giving a decision favourable to him in Civil Suit No. 8 of 1966 Gopal Lal v. Kishan Lal Jorawar Maland Ors. pending in Court of Distirct Judge, Merta."

3. The statement of allegations regarding the said charge was as under:

"That a suit for partition No. 8 of 1966 titled Gopal Lal v. Kishan Lal Jorawar Maland ors . was pending in the Court of Distt., Judge Merta while you were working as Distt. Judge at Merta. In that case you called Jorawar Malat your residence through one Jagdish Nai and demanded Rs. 15,000/- from him You asked Jorawar Malto pay Rs. 5,000/- to Shri Jagdish Nai and also told Jorawar Malthat no writing should be executed as evidence thereof. Jorawar Malon 17-10 80 delivered a bearer cheque of Rs. 5000/- bearing No. AN 744189 drawn on the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur to Jagdish Nai which Shri Jagdish Nai encashed on the same day on 17-10-80. Shri Jorawar Malgot it verified from you that you had received the payment of the cheque. On 3rd or 5th of the Feb., 1981 you called Jorawar Malat your residence and demanded a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- from him. Towards this amount he paid a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 5-2-1.981 in cash to Shri Jagdish for which Jorawar Malgot executed from Jagdish a pronote in the name of his son Dev Karan the same day. The pronote was executed by Jagdish on your behalf. Since his case was not decided in his favour he sent separate telegraphic notice on 18-2-81 to both you and Jagdish demanding from both of you to refund of Rs. 12,000/-. You did not reply to this telegraphic notice. Instead, you expressed your displeasure to Jorawar Maland told him that the telegraphic notice should not have been sent to you. You also promised to refund the amount but you did not. Jorawar Mal also telephoned to you at Pali and demanded his payment. Thereafter Shri Jorawar Malsent you a registered notice dated 5-3-81 demanding payment but you neith

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1986 Supreme(Raj) 540

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTS.C.Agrawal, K.S.Lodha, JJ.Ravindra Nath - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan and Ors. - RespondentD.B. Writ Petition No. 1822 of 1984.Decided On : 30-06-1986

The High Court has the power to initiate and hold disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer and the said power cannot be exercised by the State Government.

Cases Referred (14)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, K.S.Lodha, JJ.
Ravindra Nath - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Writ Petition No. 1822 of 1984.
Decided On : 30-06-1986