JUDGMENT

Vishal Mishra, J. - The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.04.2004 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was employed in the establishment of the respondent - District and Sessions Judge, Satna vide order dated 16.11.1995 on the post of Assistant Grade-III. He joined the services on 20.11.1995. He worked in the Fast Track Court, Amarpatan, District Satna from 07.01.2001 to 04.10.2001 as a Deposition Writer. Thereafter, he was posted in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Amarpatan from 05.10.2001 to 08.03.2002.

3. The Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court having ill will with the petitioner, has sent a report dated 07.09.2001 to the District and Sessions Judge, Satna. On this, an explanation was called from the petitioner vide letter dated 13.09.2001. A reply was submitted by the petitioner but thereafter there was no intimation to the petitioner regarding the outcome of the same. On 11.02.2002 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet for holding departmental enquiry. No documents were supplied to the petitioner along with charge sheet. On 19.02.2002, he filed an application for supply of the documents, on which, a copy of complaint dated 06.12.2001 was supplied to the petitioner; however, the other documents were not supplied to him. The Enquiry Officer was appointed on 14.06.2002.

4. It is pointed out that a preliminary enquiry was got conducted on the complaint of some advocates. The said enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and no proper opportunity was provided to him to defend his case. Thereafter, on 13.09.2001 he was transferred from the Court of Fast Track, Amarpatan to the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Amarpatan. On 21.09.2001, a D.O. was written by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Amarpatan not to post the petitioner in his Court on any post. This shows that Shri Sheikh Salim, was prejudice with the petitioner, therefore, there was a fault in appointing him to conduct a preliminary enquiry.

5. It is argued that despite several representations and letters being submitted by the petitioner for supplying of the documents which have been relied upon by the disciplinary authority in the disciplinary enquiry, the same has not been supplied to him. No proper opportunity to defend was ever granted to him during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. He was transferred to Chhindwara on 23.08.2002 and he was relieved on 28.08.2002 despite of the fact that he required to attend the proceedings of the departmental enquiry on 02.09.2002. The authorities with a pre-planned manner have transferred him during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner between 18.07.2002 to 05.09.2002 and during this period, the petitioner has been posted in different places, till the final order of termination was passed.

6. It is submitted that the charges which are levelled against the petitioner are so vague that no prudent man could have filed any response to the charge sheet as the charges could not have been established at any point of time by the respondents. Even otherwise, Shri C.L.Tiwari, Advocate on whose complaint the enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner has filed an application on 03.01.2002 requesting to withdraw the complaint. The same was duly forwarded and submitted by the President Bar Association to the respondent authorities but not being considered by the respondents and they continued with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. This itself shows that the departmental proceedings have been conducted in a mala fide manner as the authorities were prejudiced with the petitioner. After transfer of the petitioner and after relieving him on 28.08.2002, he immediately submitted an application on 29.08.2002 to the respondents that he will not be in a position to attend the proceedings of 02.09.2002. Thereafte