Kirpal, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, has by this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, assailed the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against him pursuant to the resolution dated 5th May, 1995 of the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court.
(2.) The petitioner had joined the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service as a District and Sessions Judge on 31st July, 1976. He had been posted and had discharged duties at various places and in different capacities including that as an Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court and Registrar (Vigilance), Rajasthan High Court. With effect from 1st July, 1989 to 1st February, 1994 the petitioner was posted as Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court. After he was posted as District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur on 2nd February, 1994 and then was transferred as District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur with effect from 6th June, 1994 but before his superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years, departmental enquiries were initiated against him on two occasions. The first departmental enquiry was initiated by a resolution of Full Court dated 21st October, 1994, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in this Court. By order dated 22nd November, 1994 in the judgment reported as R. C. Sood v. High Court of Rajasthan, (1994) 3 Suppl. SCC 711 , this Court quashed the said disciplinary proceedings and the Full Court's resolution in respect thereto. The second disciplinary proceeding, which has been challenged in this writ petition, has been initiated by the High Court vide its resolution dated 5/6th January, 1995. Rule nisi was issued by this Court limited to the question of legality of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and not on the question of his retirement on his attaining the age of 58 years.
(3.) There are two sets of facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid two resolutions by the High Court whereby it sought to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Even though the resolution dated 21st October, 1994, when the first departmental proceeding was initiated, has been quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 22nd November, 1994, in order, however, to deal with the contentions arising in this petition, it is necessary to first refer to the set of facts pertaining to the issuance of the first disciplinary proceedings as that has very material bearing in the present case. First Disciplinary Proceedings:;