ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.06.2016 removing the petitioner from service by way of penalty. The petitioner also challenges the memorandum-charge-sheet dated 05.07.2012 issued to her and relief of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, is claimed.

2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are as under:

2.1 The petitioner who was working as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, was in receipt of memorandum dated 05.07.2012 served under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereafter ‘the CCA Rules’). The memorandum was issued by the Enquiry Officer.

2.2 The petitioner has pleaded that statement of charges under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules along-with statement of allegations primarily levelled the following allegations against the petitioner:

(I) The petitioner disposed of Motor Accident claim petitions arbitrarily by granting much higher compensation where the injured had suffered lesser permanent disability.

(II) The petitioner arbitrarily awarded comparatively lesser amount of compensation, where the injured had suffered permanent disability to a larger extent or lost their lives in the accident.

(III) The brother in law of the petitioner contacted injured/relatives of the deceased and demanded money from them in lieu of passing higher award of compensation and the same was done by him few days prior to the date of judgment.

(IV) The petitioner awarded higher amount of compensation either to bestow undue favour for extraneous consideration or awarded lesser amount of damages with mala-fide intention, as she could not get extraneous consideration.

(V) The petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which was unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and amounted to violation of provisions of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (hereafter ‘the Rules of 1971’).

3. The petitioner has pleaded that prior to issuance of charge-sheet, the respondent-High Court conducted preliminary enquiry and recorded the statement and copy of the preliminary enquiry report was not given to the petitioner and the same was denied terming it to be ‘confidential’.

4. The petitioner has pleaded that after receipt of charge-sheet, she demanded various documents and also the report of the preliminary enquiry and she was made available certain documents but not given the preliminary enquiry report.

5. The petitioner submitted her detailed reply to the charge-sheet on 24.09.2012 and denied all the allegations levelled against her. The petitioner pleaded in the reply that she did not violate any of the provisions of service Rules. She further stated in her reply that the MACT awards were passed in accordance with law and further the act performed by the petitioner in a judicial capacity, could not have been questioned in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

6. The petitioner also pleaded that the awards which were passed by her, were also subject matter of challenge before the High Court and merit of the awards could not be adjudicated in the departmental proceedings.

7. The petitioner also denied allegations regarding extraneous consideration and demand of any money through her brother in law.

8. The petitioner after filing of the reply, demanded appointment of a defence nominee and she proposed the name of one-Shri U.C. Barupal, RHJS (Retd.) however, the said request was rejected by the respondent-High Court and defence nominee of her choice was not permitted to be appointed and as such, she later on appointed another Judicial Officer Shri Kamal Raj Singhvi, RHJS as defence nominee.

9. The petitioner has pleaded that during course of the enquiry, several witnesses were produced by the employer and their statements were contradictory and inconsistent. The petitioner has given details in respect of the statements, which had been recorded during enquiry and has controve