IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
AJIT SINGH, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, JJ.
Abdul Naim Khan – Petitioner
VERSUS
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10691/2009
Decided On : 16.7.2015
Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 235, 311 and 226 - PDPP Act - Section 3 - SC/ST Act - Section 3(i)10 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 409, 353, 504 - Entire disciplinary proceedings - Seizure of the disposal - Petitioner was initially appointed to Rajasthan Judicial Services as a Civil Judge on while he was posted as Civil Judge at under District Judgeship Administrative Judge had visited the petitioner’s court on inspection, and found that certain files and registers were not made available by the petitioner. The Administrative Judge sent a fax massage - Chief Judicial Magistrate and arrange a search and seizure of the disposal register copying application register, file of quarterly returns sent by the officer to the High Court, cause lists and all files applications and other documents including original judgments of the cases purportedly decided by the petitioner while may be lying at his residence - pertaining to an incident in the night intervening along with copy of fax sent from by Private Secretary note received from Private Secretary to Justice – Held, Doctrine of Equality when it is found that the concerned employee and the co-delinquent are equally placed there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge sheet in the two cases - If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology lesser punishment to him would be justifiable - petitioner cannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct - It is reiterated that the conduct of judicial officer has to be of the highest level - He had not only impersonated and misused the name of the Supreme Court while asking the operators at the residence of the Judge, Chief Justice and the Registrar to switch on the fax machine but had called at their residence at an odd hour after midnight - If petitioner had any grievance regarding the inspection of the Administrative Judge, he could have approached the Chief Justice in an appropriate manner - His conduct subsequent to his suspension in evading service and not submitting any reply before the enquiry officer is also deplorable which aggravates the misconduct on his part - He also did not report headquarter during period of suspension kind of behaviour on the part of a judicial officer cannot be countenanced and only punishment which would be appropriate in such a case is dismissal from service - Petition is dismissed
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.
The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2008, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also sought several directions including declaration that the entire disciplinary proceedings are bad in law, and to pay him the entire salary and allowances from 27.01.2002 till date.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed to Rajasthan Judicial Services as a Civil Judge on 08.09.1993. On 25.01.2002 while he was posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Doongla under District Judgeship of Partapgarh, the Administrative Judge had visited the petitioner’s court on inspection, and found that certain files and registers were not made available by the petitioner. The Administrative Judge sent a fax massage on 27.01.2002 to Mr.S.R. Gander, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh to proceed to Doongla and arrange a search and seizure of the disposal register, institution register, peshi register, copying application register, file of quarterly returns sent by the officer to the High Court, cause lists from October, 2001 to January, 2002, and all files, applications and other documents including original judgments of the cases purportedly decided by the petitioner while at Doongla, which may be lying at his residence. The CJM was also directed to proceed with caution by taking necessary assistance from police authorities and to take along some lady Constables to carryout the search.
3. The CJM, Chittorgarh then carried out the search of the premises of the petitioner and his Court. This led to an unsavory incident which resulted in the Chief Judicial Magistrate lodging an FIR on 27.01.2002 against the petitioner under Sections 409, 353, 504 IPC, Section 3(i)10 SC/ST Act and Section 3, PDPP Act.
4. In the meantime, the Registrar (Classification) submitted a note on 26.01.2002 pertaining to an incident in the night intervening of 25.01.2002 and 26.01.2002 alongwith copy of fax dated 25.01.2002 sent from Doongla by Private Secretary to Justice N.P. Gupta (Administrative Judge). A note received from Private Secretary to Justice Jagat Singh dated 26.01.2002 and letter of the petitioner received through fax at 1.40 AM on 26.01.2002 were also annexed with the note which was put up before the Registrar General. The Registrar General placed the note before the Chief Justice, whereupon the Chief Justice issued direction to initiate enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1958 Rules') and directed that he be suspended forthwith and his headquarter was fixed at Jodhpur. Charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by enquiry officer under Rule 16 which contained the following charges:
“CHARGE No. 1
While Mr. Abdul Naeem Khan was posted and functioning as Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Doongla, District Chittorgarh (Pratapgarh Judgeship) on 25.1.2002, his court was inspected by Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.P. Gupta, Hon’ble Inspecting Judge of Pratapgarh Judgeship. During the intervening night of 25.1.2002 and 26.1.2002, he without disclosing his identity and telephone No., made telephone call on telephone No. 430361 at odd hours i.e. at 1.00 a.m. of the night at the residence of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagat Singh and falsely represented to his Lordship that an urgent message is to be faxed from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to Rajasthan High Court, so the fax machine of Rajasthan High Court may be put on immediately to receive the fax message, which caused inconvenience to his Lordship, whereas infact no urgent message from the Supreme Court was to be faxed. Thus, he acted in an irresponsible, indisciplined and improper manner, unbecoming of a judicial officer and thereby committed gross misconduct.
CHARGE NO. 2
While Mr. Abdul Naeem Khan was posted and functioning as above, he without revealing his identity and telephone No. made similar telephone call, soon thereafter to Mr. C.P. Singh, Registrar (
Rajasthan Versus Ramesh Chand Paliwal and another
Union of India and Others Vs. B.V. Gopinath
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Quimat Rai Gupta and Ors.
M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Union of India Vs. Deenanath Kanta Ram Karyakarta
Dr. Ramesh Chand Tyagi Vs. Union of India and Ors.
R.C. Sood Vs. High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan and Ors.
Ghanshyam Dass Vs. State of M.P.
Anwar Nisha Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar
Captain M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Goldmines Ltd.
State of Punjab Vs. K.K. Sharma
S. Parthasarthi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee
Bharat Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Chand Behari Kapoor and Ors.
Union of India and Ors. Vs. B.C. Chaturvedi
Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and Ors.
Sate of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha
Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr.
Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra Singh
State of Meghalaya Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak
Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra
Daya Shankar Vs. High Court of Allahabad & Ors.
Arundhati Ashok Walavalkar Vs. State of Maharastra
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shashikant S. Patil and Anr.
M.M. Malhotra Vs. Union of India
U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi
State Government of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shankarlal
Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Limited Vs. R.D.S. Project Limited
G. Jayalal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
South Bengal State Transport Corporation vs. Ashok Kumar Ghosh & Others [(2010) 11 SCC 71]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.