The Chief Justice did not have the power to nominate a Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry against the appellant, as the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers vested in the Full Court only and the Chief Justice and the Administrative Judge were not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, nor was the Chief Justice competent to nominate a judge as disciplinary authority to take the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.

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 & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. While working as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, the appellant was trying Civil Suit No. 108/1961-4/1968 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. The writ petition of the appellant was heard b