RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Vs. VED PRIYA
LAWS(SC)-2020-3-66
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 18,2020

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Appellant
VERSUS
Ved Priya Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KUMAR INDU BHUSHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-4-129] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These civil appeals have been preferred by the Rajasthan High Court against the order dated 16.12.2014 by which a Division Bench of the said High Court dismissed a petition for review of its earlier order dated 09.11.2014 wherein the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Ved Priya (Respondent No. 1 ­ a former judicial officer) and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits and seniority.
FACTS

(2.)Respondent No. 1 was recruited into the Rajasthan Judicial Services on 16.07.2002 and appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division)cumJudicial Magistrate. He was placed on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 02.08.2002, which was later extended by a further period of two months on 28.07.2004.
(3.)Certain allegations of misdemeanour and corruption in discharge of judicial functions were received during the probation period against a few judicial officers (including Respondents No. 1), on the basis of which the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Rajasthan High Court called for the records and submitted a report dated 05.08.2004. This report was put forth before the Administrative Committee of the High Court, along with a wealth of other material while it was undertaking the confirmation process of over ninety three probationary judges. This fivejudge Committee sought to determine the suitability of the probationers as per terms and conditions of the appointment by evaluating their integrity, knowledge, conduct and behaviour. In this process the Committee relied upon numerous materials, including reports submitted by their District Judges, Inspecting Judges, ACRs as well the aforementioned report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance). After due consideration, it was recommended that the services of ninety officers be confirmed, the probationary period of one officer be extended and services of two judicial officers (including Respondent No. 1) not be confirmed. This report was placed before the Full Court of the High Court, which on 16.09.2004 confirmed the recommendations.
Consequently and on the recommendation of High Court, State Government vide order dated 30.09.2004 dispensed with the services of Respondent No.1.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.