The disciplinary jurisdiction over the members of the subordinate judiciary vests exclusively in the High Court and the Governor or the Government need be associated only when the High Court arrives at a tentative conclusion that the delinquent judicial officer deserves the penalty of dismissal or removal from service.

1. - This is an application by the petitioner Anandllal Verma under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ, direction or order:

(i) to quash the show-cause notice dated 4 December 1963 issued by the Law Secretary requiring him to show cause why he should not be removed or dismissed from the Rajasthan Judicial Service, and

(ii) to quash the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 6 July 1963 issued by the Registrar of this Court placing the petitioner under suspension as also the enquiry proceedings and the report held and made by C. B. Bhargava, J.

2. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that be is entitled to be reinstated. A prayer has also been made for a direction or writ by way of prohibition or otherwise to prohibit the Rajasthan State from proceeding further against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was appointed to the office of Munsif in the Rajasthan Judicial Service on 1 July 1959 on two years' probation by the Governor of Rajasthan. He was confirmed In the year 1961. He took over charge of the office of Munslf-Magistrate, Nawa, Nagpur district, on 20 April 1962.

4. In January 1963, a written complaint signed by one Pyarelal was received In this Court in which serious allegations were made against the petitioner. It was suggested that he had got his relations and neighbours, with whom he had previous enmity, Involved in a criminal case and had Illegally ordered their arrest and their detention in jail. This complaint was forwarded to Sri Rajvi Amar Singh, District and Sessions Judge, Merta, for enquiry and report. Another complaint in Hindi signed by Dhoolchand, Srinarain and Kalyan making similar allegations against the petitioner was submitted to the District and Sessions Judge, Merta. The District and Sessions Judge, Merta, had a preliminary enquiry and also obtained the comments of the petitioner on the complaints received against him and found a prima facie case established against the petitioner.

5. On receipt of the report of the District and Sessions Judge, Merta, the Chief Justice on 6 July 1963 passed an order placing the petitioner under suspension, with immediate effect. The Chief Justice also appointed Justice Sri C. B. Bhargava as enquiry officer under Rule 16 (4) to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the rules).

6. Bhargava, J., framed two charges against the petitioner which along with the statement of allegations on which the charges were based, were served on him on 15 July 1963. Charge 1 was that he abused his magisterial power and by has order dated 26 July 1962 in State v. Narain (Criminal Case No. 41 of 1962), pending in his Court, got Ganpat illegally arrested and brought before him and further by his order dated 4 August 1962 illegally remanded him to police custody for a period of seven days with the result that Ganpat remained In wrongful confinement from 4 August 1962 to 7 August 1962 for Which he was entirely responsible. It was further added that the above act was done by him against Ganpat as Ganpat had filed a complaint against his father Sri Chhitar Mal regarding an encroachment in a public way in which Gram Panchayat, Harnod, inflicted a fine of Rs. 11 on 21 May 1961, and therefore, he wanted to take revenge from Ganpat. As charge 2 has not been held proved, it need not be referred.

7. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges Bhargava, J., after holding a full enquiry, prepared his report on 21 September 1963 holding the petitioner guilty of charge 1 and recommended punishment of dismissal or removal of the petitioner from service.

8. The report was put up before the Judge In the Administration Department who made the following observations;

"The disciplinary authority for the purposes of the punishment proposed on this officer is the State Government vide Rule 5 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classific