The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for integrity in the judiciary, the limitations of judicial review, and the principles governing interference with administrative decisions.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging order dated 02.06.2016, whereby, he was imposed penalty of removal from service.

2. Facts of the case, in brief as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Judicial Magistrate with effect from 10.03.2008. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.07.2013. Memorandum dated 17.08.2013 was served on the petitioner by the Enquiry Judge and petitioner submitted his reply to the said Memorandum on 09.11.2013. Enquiry Judge vide report dated 30.01.2016 held that the charge levelled against the petitioner was duly proved. Petitioner submitted representation dated 26.03.2016. Vide order dated 02.06.2016, petitioner was removed from service.

3. Notice was issued to respondents. Respondent No.1 in its reply has submitted that the petitioner had been removed from service after following due process of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Enquiry Judge had no power to proceed against the petitioner. Charge sheet could have issued against the petitioner by the competent authority, but in the present case, it had been issued by Enquiry Judge and not by Disciplinary Authority.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that first proviso to Rule 23(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') was liable to be struck down to the extent it did not provide right to appeal against the order of removal from service.

6. Learned counsel has further submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not established during enquiry. In-fact, Lok Adalats had been duly held with regard to the bills-in-question. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on Para No. 13 of the writ petition. Impugned order was a non-speaking order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Ghanshyam Singh was the Chairman of the Bar Association, Railmagra and he had a prejudice against the petitioner and due to this reason, petitioner had been falsely involved in this case. In this regard, learned counsel has made reference to Para No. 12 of the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Chand Jain Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Another, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1395, wherein it was observed that it was imperative for the High Court to take steps to protect its honest officers by ignoring ill-conceived or motivated complaints made by the unscrupulous lawyers and litigants.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next placed reliance on Para No. 3 of the judgment of this Court in Sukhraj Singh Vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1988 (1) Rajasthan LR 613, which reads as under:

"3. The petitioner has further alleged that from a perusal of his Annual Confidential Reports it would be revealed that he was an officer of outstanding ability and unquestionable integrity. However, to his surprise he was served with a communication dated August 16, 1986 whereby certain adverse remarks for the year 1985 were communicated to him. Against this communication dated August 16, 1986 the petitioner submitted a representation dated September 1, 1986 vide Ex. 1. While the said representation was, pending the petitioner was served with a memorandum dated January 27, 1987, issued under the signatures of Shri G.M. Lodha, as the disciplinary authority proposing an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (here in after referred to as 'the Disciplinary Rules') on the charges of allegations enclosed therewith. A copy of the memorandum dated January 27, 1987, along with the statement of charges and statement of allegations has been submitted & marked as Ex. 2 along with enclosures 1 and 2. The petitioner thereupon submitted an application dated February 6, 19