R.S. JHA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing the charge sheet dated 8-9-2014 issued by the High Court with a further prayer for protecting the petitioner's right for elevation as a High Court Judge. In addition, the petitioner has also prayed that the recommendation of the Collegium of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby the petitioner's juniors have been recommended and have been considered for appointment as High Court Judges, be stayed and may be directed not to be finalised till disposal of the petition/departmental enquiry ordered against the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior and is at present posted as Principal Judge, Family Court, Singrauli. It is stated that the petitioner, while performing his duties as District Judge, had granted anticipatory bail to several applicants.

2. It is asserted that a false complaint (Annexure P-25), was filed by a fictitious person Anvesh Singh before the High Court of M.P. pursuant to which a preliminary fact finding enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and thereafter the impugned charge sheet (Annexure P-1), dated 8-9-2014 has been issued to the petitioner wherein it has been alleged that in spite of the fact that the State has opposed the applications for grant of anticipatory bail, the petitioner, by wrongly recording the concession of one Shri Jor Singh Bhadoriya, Investigating Officer, behind his back granted anticipatory bail to the applicants. It is submitted that the petitioner has been charged of recording a wrong undertaking of the said Investigating Officer in his absence after he was asked to leave the Court whereas the Investigating Officer has later on stated that he had not given any such undertaking.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1966"), on the basis of the judicial orders passed by him by alleging that the petitioner knowingly and intentionally mentioned incorrect facts in the bail orders with an ulterior or corrupt motive or for extraneous consideration and thereby extended favour and undue benefit to the applicants in granting anticipatory bail to them. It is further stated that the petitioner had in fact directly approached the Supreme Court against the charge sheet by filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, but the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court by way of a writ petition, hence this petition.

4. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry could have been initiated against the petitioner in respect of the statement recorded by the petitioner in the order sheet with regard to what transpired in the Court proceedings as matters of judicial record cannot be questioned nor can they be made the basis for initiating a departmental enquiry. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submission, has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, (1982) 2 SCC 463. The learned Senior Counsel, relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, has further submitted that in case the State or the Investigating Officer felt that the statement recorded in the order sheet was incorrect, the only course open to them was to seek clarification or recall of the order but no departmental proceedings in respect of judicial orders can be initiated against the petitioner.

5. Before we consider the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner it would be appropr