- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a judicial officer, challenging an order reducing the petitioner in rank consequent to disciplinary proceedings conducted by the High Court.
(2.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
(3.) Brief facts, which emerge from pleadings of the parties, are; the petitioner, a member of U.P. Judicial Service, was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge in January, 1997. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. In Case crime No. 311 of 2002, under Section 302, 395 and 120-B of I.P.C. a bail application was moved before the District Judge on 9th September, 2002. A transfer application was filed by the complainant for transferring the case from the court of Special Judge, which although was rejected but the District Judge suo moto transferred the bail application to the court of the petitioner. The bail application was filed by one Akhilesh Kumar Singh who was accused in an incident dated 3rd July, 2002 in which allegation was on Akhilesh Kumar Singh and others persons that they went in the morning at the residence of Rakesh Pandey, the brother of the complainant, and entering in his lawn, have open fired. One of the assailants was arrested on the spot. Rakesh Pandey, who was shot, was taken to a nursing home where he died. The bail application was heard and rejected on 18th October, 2002 by the petitioner (Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli). In the second bail application certain new circumstances and facts were mentioned on the basis of which the accused claimed grant of bail. The complainant filed a transfer application before the District Judge on 2nd September, 2002 alleging that an information has been received from one Ghanshyam Mishra, Advocate that the officer having taken an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as gratification from the accused, is going to allow the bail application. Earlier 1st November, 2002 was fixed by the Charged Officer as a date for disposal of the second bail application on which date an adjournment application was filed by the complainant praying for 15 days time. The Charged Officer adjourned the hearing and fixed 2nd November, 2002 as a date for hearing of the second bail application on which date transfer application was filed before the District Judge. The District Judge rejected the transfer application on 2nd November, 2002 with the observation that the Charged Officer may expeditiously disposed of the bail application. The Charged Officer fixed 7th November, 2002 for hearing of the bail application on which date a request for adjournment was again made by the complaint, which was refused and after hearing learned counsel for the accused and the District Government Counsel (Criminal), the bail application was allowed by order dated 7th November, 2002. A complaint dated 16th November, 2012 was filed against the Charged Officer by Anurag Kumar Pandey, the brother of the deceased, to the High Court. The disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the Charged Officer by charge-sheet dated 6th October, 2004. In the disciplinary inquiry, department led evidence consisting of seven witnesses and certain documentary materials. The Charged Officer also filed certain papers in the inquiry. According to the department the second bail was granted substantially on the same grounds as were raised in the first bail application and there was no circumstances justifying the grant of second bail. On the other hand the Charged Officer stated before the learned Enquiry Judge that the second bail was granted on new grounds which were available after rejection of the first bail application. The inquiry was conducted by an Hon'ble Judge of this Court who submitted inquiry report dated 11th October, 2005 holding that the Charged Officer granted bail on extraneous consideration and therefore failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct under Rule 3 of the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. The inquiry report was forwarded to the Charged Officer by the High Court for submitting his reply. The Charged Officer by letter dated 6th October, 2005 submitted his reply reiterating that the second bail application was allowed due to certain new circumstances and facts which were brought before him in the second bail application. The matter was taken by the Administrative Committee of the High Court on 29th November, 2005 on which date the Administrative Committee resolved to accept the inquiry report and referred the matter to the Full Court for consideration on quantum of punishment. The Full Court vide its resolution dated 17th December, 2005 accepted the inquiry report and resolved that officer be punished by reversion to the next lower rank from his present substantive rank. The resolution of the Full Court was forwarded to the State Government. The State Government issued an order on 17th January, 2006 reverting the petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). The writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17th January, 2006 and further for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to function and discharge the duties as the member of U.P. Higher Judicial Service.;