PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, in the present writ petition, is a Judicial Officer. THE writ petition has been filed by him to challenge the order of punishment awarded to him by the respondents after departmental proceedings. THE petitioner was imposed with a penalty of reversion from the post of Civil Judge (S. D.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he joined the Rajasthan Judicial Service (R. J. S.) on 19. 7. 1985 as Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Kishangarhbas, District Alwar. He was promoted to the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and was also granted senior scale in the year 1993. THEreafter the petitioner was placed in the selection scale from senior scale. THE petitioner claims that he continued to serve with the best of his sincerity and hard work. THE petitioner has claimed that while he was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) at Jodhpur he received a memorandum on 10. 4. 2000. In this memorandum an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (referred to hereinafter as ``the C. C. A. Rules, 1958) was proposed against him. THE statement of allegations alongwith charges framed was also served on him. The stand of the petitioner is that three pronged charges and allegations were levelled based upon one single incident. Firstly, it was appointment of Basant Kumar as Class IV Servant on 7. 12. 1999 against the rules and prescribed procedure. Secondly, the person who was appointed as Class IV servant was a close relative of the petitioner and thirdly, the appointment was made in a hasty manner without properly advertising the vacancy. The petitioner during the course of the enquiry submitted an application on 10. 5. 2000. By this application the petitioner sought the record of the persons given appointment under Class IV category. This information was sought by the petitioner to prove the practice and procedure adopted by the other officers. This was sought by him to establish that he had adopted the same practice and procedure which has been adopted by the other officers. Such application was rejected without providing sufficient reasons as claimed by the petitioner. Such documents were needed for the defence but they were denied to be supplied to the petitioner though they were neither classified nor were against the public interest. The petitioner has claimed that he made the appointment after due authorisation by the District and Sessions Judge to fill up the vacant post of Class IV employee vide his letter No. 191/99/7352 dated 1. 12. 1999. The petitioner has stressed that the appointment was not made dehors the rules and there was no procedure prescribed for making such appointment. Under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Class IVth Services (Recruitment & Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999 (referred to hereinafter as `the Rules of 1999') the appointment of temporary and urgent nature did not have any fixed practice and procedure. The petitioner had adopted the necessary practice and procedure as per the precedents holding in the Subordinate Courts at that time. There was nothing unusual or new about the whole case. The petitioner submitted that though Basant Kumar was his close relative but, however, appointment of a close relative was never a matter of illegality or any kind of unlawful practice specially when the same had been in consonance with the appropriate rules. This has been made clear by the petitioner that in past the authorities have never taken up such incidence as an illegality leave aside charge-sheeting and punishing the persons who made such appointments by treating it as a misconduct. The petitioner had never admitted the charges as alleged and claimed that he was not guilty of the charges. Under these circumstances, the Enquiry Authority was supposed to take the statements and evidence on record. Unfortunately the Enquiry Authority made its own conclusion that the petitioner had pleaded guilty even when the petitioner had vehemently denied all the charges and then without adopting further practice and procedure, the Enquiry Authority has held the petitioner guilty. The petitioner claims that he was not afforded further opportunity to defend himself and he was held guilty of the charges. The petitioner has further claimed that no opportunity of examination or cross- examination of material witnesses was given. The petitioner was also not allowed to examine himself so as to clarify his stand regarding the abovementioned charges. The petitioner further claimed that he was not supplied the necessary record to prepare his defence. He was not also permitted to summon the relevant record.
(3.) THE Enquiry Authority submitted the enquiry report on 28. 8. 2000. THE Enquiry Authority has concluded with the assumption that the petitioner had admitted all the allegations levelled against him, whereas the petitioner repeatedly denied the charges of committing any illegality or misconduct. It has been contended by the petitioner in his defence that appointment given to his close relative was not devoid of any rules and was only in the nature of temporary and urgent appointment which was made as per the authorisation. In this back-ground, it was absolutely improper to draw the conclusion that the petitioner had admitted the charges levelled against him. THE petitioner claims that the Enquiry Authority has relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. THE petitioner says that all the cases are distinguishable because the petitioner has different facts in his case. The petitioner has claimed that the Rules of 1999 do not provide for any practice and procedure looking into the peculiar circumstances whereby the nature of appointment needed quick and immediate action. The petitioner has claimed that the subordinate courts in making such appointments has been consistently not following the procedure which is required to be followed in making regular selections. The Enquiry Authority held that the appointment of a close relative amounts to a grave misconduct. This points towards nepotism and corruption. It is claimed by the petitioner that this absolutely vindictive view ought not to have been taken because no law whatsoever bars the appointment of a close relative, if he is eligible and found suitable for the job. The enquiry report was considered by the Full Court and proposal for dismissal from service was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was communicated that if he wishes to send a representation the same may be sent within a period of 15 days. The petitioner was also intimated that if he is desirous of a personal hearing the same may also be intimated. The petitioner submitted his desire for personal hearing and also sent his representation. The petitioner submitted that the enquiry was held under Rule 16 of the C. C. A. Rules, 1958 but the procedure mentioned in the above rules was not followed. The petitioner is alleged to have failed in providing with the necessary details regarding the past appointments. But the same is not true because the petitioner had submitted a list of 27 Class IV employees who were appointed by adopting the same procedure which also included the cases of appointment of the relatives but unfortunately an opportunity of inspecting and getting the copies of the abovementioned record was dismissed. ;