Honble MATHUR, J.–By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to quash the memo dated 28.7.2001, whereby she has been informed that an enquiry is proposed to be held against her under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred-to as `the CCA Rules.

(2). Petitioner Smt. Sushila Nagar is officer in the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service. She was served with a memo of chargesheet dated 30.10.2000 alongwith the Statement of Allegation under the signatures of Honble the Enquiry Judge. The case against the petitioner as set out in the Statement of Allegations is that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Pali, by order dated 23.05.1986 directed to release tractor bearing No. RSY 8389 to one Shri Mahaveer Chand. Another claimant of tractor filed a review application, which was rejected by order dt. 30.6.88. The revisional Court set aside the order of the learned Magistrate by order dated 30.04.1993 and directed to decide the application for disposal of the tractor after hearing all the concerned parties. This order was challenged before this Court by way of petition under Section 482 CrPC, which was rejected by order dated 25.7.96. Obviously, after rejection of application u/Sec. 482 CrPC, the learned Magistrate was required to dispose of the application for disposal of the tractor in accordance with the order of the revisional Court dt. 30.04.1993 i.e. to decide the application afresh after giving hearing to all the concerned parties. The petitioner was working as Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate, I Class, at Pali. She disposed-of the said application by order dated 7.10.1996 and directed to release the tractor to Mahaveer Chand in the garb of the order of the High Court. It was noted by her that the High Court has considered Mahaveer Chand as the owner of the tractor on the basis of the documents. The order of the High Court dated 25.7.1995 and the order of the learned Magistrate i.e. the petitioner are extracted as follows:

``Instant 482 Petition has been filed against the revisional order passed by learned revisional court dt. 30.4.93.

A close scrutiny of the orders impugned passed by revisional court indicates that by the impugned orders the learned revisional court has remanded the matters to the learned Magistrate to decide it in accordance with law.

The orders of remand passed by the learned revisional court is eminently just and proper and it does not require interference under Sec. 482 CrPC.

Consequently, the instant Cr.Misc. petition is hereby dismissed.

`7.10.95 :

ewy i=kokyh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky] tks/kiqj ls izkIr gks pqdh gSA bl i=kokyh esa /kkjk 451 lhvkj-ih-lh- dh nj[okLr ckcr VªsDVj ua- vkj ,l okbZ 8389 lqiqnZxh isk gqbZ ftlesa }kjk izkFkhZ egkohj pan dks lqiqnZ djus ds vknsk fn, x;s FksA bl vknsk dh fuxjkuh dh xbZ ftlesa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ ck?kflag o egkohj pan rFkk MªkbZoj lksguflag rhuksa ls fof/kuqlkj tkap dj mDr VªsDVj lqiqnZ djus ds vknsk fn;s x;s FksA mDr vknsk dh izkFkhZ egkohj pan us ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj esa ,l-ch- fØehuy felys- fiVhku ua- 457@93 dh ftlesa izkFkhZ egkohjpan dks nLrkost ds vk/kkj mDr VªsDVj dk ekfyd ekuk gSA vc bl i=koyh esa vkSj dksbZ dk;Zokgh ks"k ugha gSA i=koyh QSly kqekj gksdj nkf[ky nrj gksA*

(3). The order of the learned Magistrate was clearly contrary to the orders of the High Court dt. 25.7.1995 and of the revisional Court dt. 30.4.93. Thus, the order of the learned Magistrate was set aside by the order of the High Court dt. 15.9.98. This led to the enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. Honble the Chief Justice entrusted the enquiry against the petitioner to Honble Mr. Justice N.P. Gupta. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the memorandum of charges dt. 30.10.2000. On the main allegation, the case of the petitioner as set out in the reply is as follows:

``Respected Sir, it ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document