Judicial officers must maintain impeccable integrity; disciplinary actions must be based on established misconduct without procedural violations and adhere to high standards of justice.

ORDER :

Ravi Chirania, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by a Judicial Officer who has challenged his punishment order dated 05.08.2013, therefore, two observations as made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to judicial service, in two different judgments, being relevant for the case, are quoted as under:-

“Judicial Service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation”.

Another observation as made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is “a Judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.

1.1. Keeping the above two observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as made in two different judgments, this Court proceeds to decide the present writ petition in which challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 05.08.2013, whereby the petitioner was punished with the stoppage of three Annual Grade Increments without cumulative effect by the Full Court of the High Court, communicated to him by the order impugned in the writ petition.

2. Learned Senior counsel Mr.R.B. Mathur assisted by Advocate Ms.Nishita Gambhia submitted that the complete case as set up against the petitioner is baseless and without any foundation. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner has an unblemished service record as a Judicial Officer. He further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate in the year 1996 and since then he is performing his services without any complaint, show cause notice and no departmental enquiry was ever initiated against him as a Judicial Officer. Surprisingly, he was served with the charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules, 1958, for short), dated 04.01.2010, whereby three charges were communicated to him by Memorandum dated 04.01.2010. The charges as levelled against him are reproduced as under:-

“1. That, two Civil Suits bearing No.32/1980 (190/1980) Mandir Shri Nrisinghji Maharaj Vs. Banwari Lal Agrawal & Ors. and No.31/1980 Mandir Shri Nrisinghji Maharaj Vs. Prabhudayal Meena, were pending in the Court of ADJ (FT) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Shri Banwari Lal Agrawal, your father, was defendant in the first case and was counsel for the defendants in both the cases.

2. That, since your father was defendant in the Civil Suit No.32/1980 (190/1980) Mandir Shri Nrisinghji Maharaj Vs. Banwari Lal Agrawal & Ors. and counsel for the defendant in the Civil Suit No.31/1980 Mandir Shri Nrisinghji Maharaj Vs. Prabhudayal Meena, you approached Shri Mahendra Sharma the presiding Officer of the Court of ADJ (FT) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur which is evident from the order sheet dated 29.11.2008 drawn in the Civil Suit No.32/1980. Thus, you interfered in the administration of justice and judicial proceedings.

3. That, your