1. Petitioner through the medium of present petition has impugned order of his removal from service bearing No. 1343-LD(A) of 2000 dt. 29th of Aug2000.

2. Petitioner came to be appointed as Munsiff in the year 1980. He was promoted as Sub Judge in the year 1988. While the petitioners posting as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Leh, some complaints were received against him. An inquiry came to be conducted by the Vigilance Commissioner (Judicial), without the association of the petitioner. A report in this regard came to be submitted by the aforesaid Commissioner to the High Court. On the basis of the report, a departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner. Pending said departmental enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order No.359 dt. 28th of July94. A charge sheet was framed and served upon the petitioner on 29th of Oct94. Along with the articles of charge, the statement of articles of allegations and the evidence proposed to be relied upon in support of the charges was also communicated to the petitioner. Reply to the charges was filed by the petitioner on 22nd of Dec94, which was considered by the Full Court in its meeting held on 24th of April95. After considering the said reply, the Full Court took the following decision:-

"After considering the written statement submitted by the Judicial Officer in reply to the charges, it is resolved to appoint an Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry against the officer. Mr Justice V.K. Gupta, is appointed as Inquiry Officer who shall submit his report to the Court."

3. The Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence of the parties. But thereafter on transfer of Mr Justice V.K. Gupta, who was the Inquiry Officer, the matter was again placed before the Full Court for appointing a new Inquiry Officer. Accordingly in its meeting dt. 20th and 21st of May96, the Full Court appointed Honble Mr Justice Bilal Nazki, as the Inquiry Officer. On completion of the enquiry, a report was submitted to the High Court which was again placed before the Full Court. The Full Court, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, was of the view that the petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in service and that a major penalty of removal from service should be imposed upon him. Accordingly, a show cause notice in this regard bearing No. 222/GS dt. 10th of April98, was served upon the petitioner vide which he was given an opportunity to make a representation on the penalty proposed above. The petitioner responded to the said show cause notice by way of reply/representation dt. 8th of May98. After considering the said reply, the Full Court made a recommendation to the State for imposing the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner under Rule 30(vii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. Having accepted the said recommendations, the order impugned, referred to above, came to be passed against the petitioner removing him from services with immediate effect. It is this order, which as indicated above, is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

4. On notice, respondents have filed counter stating therein that the respondent-High Court has not committed any error in considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and reaching to a conclusion of imposing major penalty upon the petitioner who has been found guilty of charges 1, 8 and 11. It is stated that after the High Court was of the view that a major penalty of removal from service is to be imposed, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he replied, and therefore, the petitioner cannot now take a stand that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him. It has been pleaded that the disciplinary authority of the petitioner for all purposes is the High Court, and therefore, the power has been rightly exercised so far as placing the petitioner under suspension, holding of enquiry and serving of charge sheet upon him is concerned. It is st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document