Disciplinary action can be taken if an officer acts negligently, recklessly, or to confer undue favor, even if the actions are taken in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Bhanwar Lal Naga with the following prayers:-

"A. The Charge Sheet dated 23.09.2011 (Annex.5) may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjust and kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. The respondent may kindly be directed to promote the petitioner in selection scale of R.A.S. with effect from 01.04.2013 because the same is in abeyance because of pendency of this charge sheet and release the arrears of selection scale to the petitioner @ 24% interest P.A. C. The action of respondent department may kindly be held illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside and an action against the responsible officers may kindly be ordered for this illegality committed by them because their this action falls in the category of Criminal act also. If this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper then this petition may also kindly be treated as Criminal Contempt Petition.

D. The personal liability of the guilty officials may kindly be ordered and the interest of delayed payment may be recovered from their pockets.

E. During the pendency of this petition, if any order is passed or any action is taken against the petitioner prejudicial to his interests, the same may kindly be taken on record and may be quashed and set aside. F. Any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

G. Costs of the writ petition and suitable compensation for petitioner's suffering may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner being member of Rajasthan Administrative Services remained posted as Sub Divisional Officer at Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer from 30.09.2009 to 04.05.2010. A memorandum dated 23.09.2011, along with the charge-sheet and statement of charges came to be served upon the petitioner. In the charge-sheet, following charge was levelled against the petitioner.

;g fd vki Jh Hkaoj yky ukxk] vkj-,-,l-

rRdkyhu mi[k.M vf/kdkjh f'ko ds in ij fnukad 30-09-2009 ls 04-05-2010 rd dk;Zjr jgus ds nkSjku mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ,oa mi[k.M eftLVsV f'ko 1@4 lgk;d dyDVj f'ko 1@2 ds U;k;ky; esa jktLo vkosnu i= la[;k 40@2009 jktΠjkT; rglhynkj f'ko cuke xqyke iq= ihjk oxSjgk /kkjk 1771@411@2 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ds rgr izLrqr gqvkA mDr vkosnu ds vUrxZr foizkFkhZx.k }kjk vius tokc esa xzke uhEcklj ds [kljk uEcj 127@1 ds jdck 1-00 ch?kk Hkwfe dk mi;ksx d`f"k fHkUu iz;kstukFkZ fd;s tkus dk Lohdkj djus ds ckn Hkh vki }kjk fof/kor~ dk;Zokgh fd;s cxSj izkFkhZ rglhynkj f'ko ds vkosnu dks vius vkns'k fnukad 11-11-2009 ds }kjk fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s vLohdkj dj fn;k x;k ,oa foizkFkhZx.k dks nk:y mYywe jkf'k fn;k laLFkku uhEcklj dks i{kdkj cukus o Hkou fuekZ.k djus dh vuqefr iznku dj nh xbZA bl izdkj Hkwfe dh fdLe laifjorZu djk;s fcuk d`f"k Hkwfe dks /kkfeZd@O;olkf;d iz;kstukFkZ mi;ksx djus dh vuqefr iznku djuk jktLFkku fVusUlh ,DV 1955 dh /kkjk 1771@411@2 jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa d`f"k Hkwfe dk vd`f"k iz;kstukFkZ laifjorZu fu;e 2007 ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gksus ls vkidk mDr d`R; drZO; ds izfr ykijokgh ,oa vius in ds nq:i;ksx djus ds dkj.k nqjkpj.k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS ftlds fy, vki mRrjnk;h gSA

3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet dated 02.12.2011 denying the charges levelled against him stating inter alia that the order dated 11.11.2009 passed in (Application No.40/2009), Tehsildar Shiv v. Gulam S/o Peera filed under Section 177(1) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was rejected in accordance with law. Further it was stated that vide review order dated 04.01.2010, permission for use of land for religious/commercial purpose without conversion of agriculture land by raising construction was withdrawn. In the reply, it was also stated that since the order dated 11.11.2009, was passed while discharging judicial functions, the protection under Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act, 1985 is available to the petitioner. Representations/notice for demand of jus