A simpliciter order of termination of service is not punitive if it is not based on allegations of misconduct against the official.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.1.2016 as well as the recommendations which were made the basis for passing of the order dated 27.1.2016. It has been further prayed that the inquiry initiated vide memorandum dated 7.8.2015 (Annexure-4) be set aside.

2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had stood first in the District Judge Examination, 2013 conducted by Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. Thirty-nine candidates were selected by way of direct recruitment from advocates' quota. Petitioner had been practicing as a lawyer for twelve years in the High Court and was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.7.2013 (Annexure-6). Petitioner joined his duties as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bharatpur on 18.7.2013. Petitioner had discharged his duties diligently and there was no adverse report against him. Petitioner then joined as Presiding Officer, Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur on 6.5.2014 vide order dated 5.5.2014. Petitioner earned outstanding/excellent reports during his tenure as Judge, Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur from 6.5.2014 upto 31.12.2014. The Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as 'ACR') for the year 2013 conveyed to the petitioner was 'Very Good'. Petitioner was then posted as Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Department Cases, Bharatpur vide order dated 24.2.2015. Vide letter dated 1.9.2015 (Annexure-12), petitioner was conveyed his ACR for the Part-I and Part-II of the year 2014, and the same reads as under:-

2014-I: Very Good

2014-II: Good. Need to improve his judicial work since I am still the Inspecting Judge of District Bharatpur and this officer is posted there as Spl. Judge ACD. It is informed that an enquiry has been initiated against him u/r 16 of the CCA Rules. As a advisory remark Officer has to concentrate on Judicial Work and improve quality."

3. Petitioner inspected his ACR for the year 2014 and the same has been reproduced in Para-15 of the petition, which reads as under:-

1.	Integrity of the Officer	Above Board
2.	If he is fair and impartial in dealing with the Public and the Bar.	Yes
3.	If he is cool-minded and does not show temper in court	Yes
4.	His private character, if such as to lower him in the estimation of the public and adversely affected the discharge of his officials duties	No
5.	Capacity of handle files systematically	Good
6.	Whether judgments on facts and law are, on the whole, sound, well reasoned and expressed in good language?	Yes
7.	Whether the disposal of work is adequate?	Yes
8.	Control over the office and administrative capacity and tact.	Good
9.	Capacity to control the proceedings in court, with firmness and follow the procedure prescribed by law.	Good

4. Petitioner filled up his first bi-annual report for the period starting from 18.7.2013 upto 17.1.2014 in terms of the letter of District Judge, Bharatpur. Second bi-annual report was asked for the period from 18.1.2014 to 4.5.2014 and third biannual report was for the period from 18.7.2014 to 17.1.2015. Petitioner submitted representation dated 27.11.2015 against the communication of remarks recorded in the ACR for Part-II of the year 2014. While posted as Special Judge, ACD, Bharatpur, petitioner decided bail application filed by Kamlesh Kumar Jalia in a corruption case registered against him. The second bail application filed by the accused was allowed by the petitioner, as the charge-sheet had already been filed but no prosecution sanction had been granted by the Government under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the prosecution sanction of the accused had not been granted by the competent authority, the cognizance could not be