JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 17.02.2020 (Annex.8) and discharge order dated 29.06.2020 (Annex.12)

2. In nutshell, the facts of the petition are that, the petitioner having acquired B.A., B.Ed., LL.B, LL.M. and D.LL., was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-II in Education Department, Government of Rajasthan w.e.f. 30.12.2014.

3. Thereafter in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.11.2017, issued by Rajasthan High Court, the petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). She was declared successful vide order dated 04.11.2018 and appointed as Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 11.02.2019.

4. The petitioner joined the services at Rajasthan Judicial Academy, Jodhpur as a trainee RJS on 06.03.2019 and successfully completed her training on 07.03.2020.

5. Vide order dated 06.03.2020, the petitioner was kept under Awaiting Posting Order (APO) and then vide order dated 23.03.2020, her headquarter was changed from Jodhpur to District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro.

6. The petitioner received a notice dated 17-2-2020, by which she was asked to submit a detailed explanation on certain points. She submitted reply to the said notice on 02.03.2020.

7. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the allegations levelled against her, falls under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules’) but the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of CCA Rules was not followed.

8. The enquiry report was prepared by the Enquiry Judge. The report was placed before the Full Court of Rajasthan High Court. Thereafter, by an order dated 29.05.2020, the petitioner was discharged from the services.

9. The petitioner has also averred that she was not given an opportunity to assail the said enquiry report, prepared against her, which is in violation of principles of natural justice.

10. The petitioner has further averred that as per the notice dated 17.02.2020 (Annex-8), the petitioner was asked to submit her detailed explanation on 5 allegations, which are as follows:

a) While studying in LL.B. first year, the petitioner also obtained degree of B.Ed. in the same year, thus fraudulently succeeding in showing attendance in both the courses. The contention of the petitioner is that she did not obtain the degree of LL.B and B.Ed. in the same year. As per the Ordinance No.168A of the Ordinance Handbook of Rajasthan University, a candidate cannot appear in two main examinations in the same year. As per the petitioner, LL.B First Year Examination is not main examination for obtaining the degree of LL.B.

b) The petitioner while being in Government job as a Teacher did her LL.M. and again fraudulently succeeded in showing attendance in both the courses. The petitioner has given the explanation that she did not show her attendance fraudulently at two places simultaneously because generally no regular classes are held for LL.M. in the University.

c) The petitioner concealed the fact of her employment in Government job as a Teacher in the checklist submitted at the time of interview of RJS. To this the petitioner has given her explanation to the effect that, there were no columns in Checklist for Interview wherein she was required to say that she was employed in Government service. The petitioner submitted that she had filled her checklist on 02.11.2018, whereas the petitioner submitted her resignation from the government service on 25-10-2018 and had stopped reporting to service.

d) The petitioner did not obtain any permission or ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Education Department for appearing in the RJS Examination. To this the petitioner has given explanation that there is no provision in RJS Rules to obtain prior permission from the employer for appearing in RJS examination. e) The petitioner upon selection in RJS concealed th