A.K. MATHUR, J.—The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Bench, Jaipur dated 5.2.1985 (Annex. 1) whereby he was given a recorded warning to be care-ful in future and he has also challenged the order of the Chief Justice whereby his appeal was rejected.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was posted as Senior Bench Reader at Jaipur Bench. On 17.11.1984 at 3.30 P.M when the Additional Registrar went for the round he found that the petitioner was not on his seat, therefore on 19.11.1984 a memo was issued to the petitioner to explain within 3 days that why he was not available at that time on his seat. The petitioner received this memo on 30.11.1984, but he did not submit any reply. After that under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) read with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Services of Staff) Rules, 1953 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1953) was issued to the petitioner on 19.12.1934 with the direction to submit his explanation within 10 days from the date of receipt of the memo. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 2.1.1985. The Additional Registrar after going through the explanation submitted by the petitioner did not find it satisfactory and it was observed that the petitioner has not been able to point out that in what matter he went to cause list section for service work. So he gave a recorded warning to be careful in future. The petitioner appears to have filed an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 7.1.1987 (Annex. 3). Hence the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Bhandari appeared personally and argued his case. He also sub-mitted written statements.

4. We have heard Mr. Bhandari in person and gone through the written arguments.

5. The respondents have also filed a reply justifying their action.

6. Mr. Bhandari submitted that the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur is not competent to impose the penalty. In order to appre-ciate his argument, it may be relevant to mention here that at the time of crea-tion of a Bench at Jaipur the post of Additional Registrar for Jaipur Bench was created. The service conditions of the High Court employees are governed by the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Services of Staff) Rules, 1953. Rule 12 lays down that what penalties would be imposed. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1953 reads as under:—

"12. Penalties:- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed by the Chief Justice or, subject to any special order of the Chief Justice, by the Registrar upon the persons serving on the staff attached to the High Court, namely:—

(i) Censure;

(ii) With holding of increment or promotion;

(iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order;

(iv) Reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules;

(v) Compulsory retirement on proportionate pension;

(vi) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment;

(vii) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment.

Explanation:- The following shall not amount to penalty within the meaning of this rule :—

(i) Non-promotion whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, after consideration of his case to a higher grade or post to which he is eligible;

(ii) Reversion to a lower grade or post of a person officiating in a higher grade or post on the ground that he is considered after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct,

(iii) Reversion to his permanent grade or post of a person appointed on probation during or at the end of the period o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document