A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that his order of termination dated 22-12-1989 (Annex. 4) may be quashed and the petitioner may be declared to be confirmed on the post of Additional District Judge on and from 12-1-1990.
(2.) THE petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement applied for appointment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and after selection he came to be appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge by the order dated 31-12-1986 on probation for a period of two years and thereafter on 9. 1. 1987 vide Annex. 1 he was posted as additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran. THE petitioner has not placed on record the order dated 31. 12. 1986 appointing him on probation. However, his period of probation was extended by the order dated 9. 3. 1989 for another period of two months which has been placed on record as Annex. 2. THEreafter his period of probation was further extended by the order dated 10-5-1989 upto 31-12-1989. However, the petitioner's services were thereafter discharged by the order dated 22-12-1989, the copy whereof has been placed on the record an Annex. 4. Against this the petitioner filed a representation to the Governor of Rajasthan and this representation was referred to the High Court for consideration. THE petitioner has been informed vide the communication of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court dated 8-6- 1990 that the matter was placed before the Full Court on 25-5- 1990 for consideration and the same has been rejected. A copy of this letter dated 8-6-1990 has been placed on the record as Annex. ' 6. Aggrieved against his discharge from service the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner submitted that while working as Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur he was communicated an adverse entry for the year 1987 vide communication dated 4-10-1989 (Annex. 7)The adverse entry for the year 1987 reads as under : - "integrity doubtful. Not fair and impartial in dealing with the Public and the Bar. Judgements on facts and law are not sound, well reasoned. and expressed in good language. There are persistent reports about his lack of integrity. " Integrity certificate for the period from 22-8-87 to 31-12-1987 during the year 1987 was withheld. " Then, again in the year 1988, the petitioner was communicated an adverse entry by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court by his communication dated 4-10-1989, which reads as under: - "a dis-honest and corrupt officer. " Integrity certificate for the period from 1-1-1988 to 25-6-1988 during the year 1988 withheld. " The petitioner made a representation against these entries vide his representation dated 16-10-1989, but the representation was rejected and he was communicated by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court vide his communication dated 23-12-1989 that his representation has been rejected. A copy of the communication has been placed on the record as Annex. 10. The petitioner submitted that during the year 1987 he was posted at Baran in district Kota where he joined on 12-1-1987 and at that time Shri Ram H. Ajwani was posted as District Judge and the petitioner was subordinate to Shri Ajwani. Nothing adverse was recorded by Shri Ajwani. Thereafter Shri J. P. Bansal came to be posted as District Judge, Kota from 22-8-1987 and it is alleged that both these adverse entries were recorded during his time and his integrity certificates for the period from 22-8-1987 to 31-12-1987 during the year 1987 and from 1-1-1988 to 25-6-1988 in the year 1988 were withheld. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Jodhpur and he joined at Jodhpur on 25-8-1988 and at that time one Shri P. C. Goel was the District Judge and Reporting Officer of the petitioner. But he was not found anything adverse against him. The petitioner also alleged that Hon'ble Mr. N. M. Kasliwal, J. as he then was, was his reviewing Judge, who visited Baran on 23-3-1989 and met some members of the Bar. It is alleged that some of the members of the Bar vouchsafed the good reputation of the petitioner and some did not. But they were unable to specify the instances. It is submitted that some of the persons alleged liason of the petitioner with the Public Prosecutor and Jailor. But no body could produce anye specific evidence. It is said that Hon'ble Mr. Kasliwal, J. submitted his report. It is alleged that thereafter the matter was placed before the Full Court on 18-12-1989 and that the members were divided and ultimately the Full Court resolved that the petitioner should be discharged.
(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2 and the respondent has submitted that all the material relating to the petitioner's services was placed before the Full Court and the Full Court after being satisfied resolved that the petitioner should be discharged from service. It is submitted that the Registrar (Vig.) was also sent to make a detailed enquiry and he also submitted his report and the report submitted by Hon'ble Mr. N. M. Kasliwal, J. were also placed before the Full Court as well as the report of the three member's Committee which disposed of the petitioner's representation against his adverse Annual Confidential Reports was also placed before the Full Court and the Full Court resolved that the petitioner's services shall be discharged as he was on probation and he has not made sufficient use of his opportunities. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that when there was such a dispute regarding the working of the petitioner his services should not have been discharged without making a regular enquiry. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's probation was extended twice and during the extended period of probation nothing adverse was found against the petitioner then his services should not have been discharged and a regular enquiry should have been held. In support of his submission, learned counsel has invited may attention to Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another (1) and D. K. Agarwal V. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2)Learned counsel also submitted that his representation against the adverse entries was rejected by the communication (Annex. 10) and that order is not a reasoned order. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent High Court, submitted that in view of the adverse entries made against the petitioner it was not conducive to retain the petitioner in service as an honest and independent judiciary is sine qua non of the Rule of law. Learned counsel submitted that when the integrity of the petitioner has been doubted and moreso the petitioner was on probation, therefore he has failed to sufficiently utilise the opportunities and the Full Court after considering the matter at length has found that such person should not be retained in service. Therefore, the action taken by the respondent in discharging the petitioner who was on probation from service cannot be said to be bad in any manner. ;