- (1.) This intra-court appeal by the petitioner-appellant is directed against the order dated 07.09.2001 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.479/2001) and declined to interfere in the orders dated 23.03.1999 (Annex.14) whereby the District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority, had imposed on the petitioner the penalty of removal from service; and dated 12.10.2000 (Annex.16) whereby the Appellate Committee had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the penalty so imposed.
(2.) Hari Gopal Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors. The learned Single Judge of this Court dealing with the writ petition found no illegality in the impugned orders as passed against the petitioner-appellant in the disciplinary proceedings so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with a short order that, in its entirety, reads as under:- In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside of the Annexures 16 and 14 dated 12.10.2000 and 23.3.99 respectively. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders, I am satisfied that there is no merit in this petition. Looking to the past service record of the petitioner, I am satisfied that no lenient view is called for in the matter. On enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 95, he was visited with punishment of censure in the year 1990. In 1992, he was again given a written warning on conclusion of enquiry under Rule 16. In 1993 he was punished by a penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect. In 1995 penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was inflicted. Which was on appeal modified to stoppage of one increment. In 1996 in another enquiry, he was punished with penalty of stoppage of three increments. The petitioner was transferred by the order dated 5.2.98 from Special Judge A.C.D. Cases, Jodhpur to Jaisalmer Judgeship. He was relieved from duty on 4.3.98. Inspite of the fact that he was relieved on 4.3.98, he did not join his duties at Jaisalmer. A notice was sent to him for this misconduct of not complied with the order dated 5.2.98. In the enquiry he adopted an attitude of non co-operation and rightly ex parte proceedings were taken against him. The petitioner failed to furnish any explanation for his act of non compliance of the order of his transfer. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. As result of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition fails and same is dismissed. In the facts of this case, no order as to costs.
(3.) Hari Gopal Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors. In brief, the relevant facts and background aspects, in their feasible chronology, could be taken into comprehension as follows: The disciplinary proceedings leading to the writ petition had their genesis in an order dated 05.02.1998 whereby the High Court transferred the petitioner, who was working on the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Court of the Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jodhpur, to Jaisalmer Judgeship with immediate effect. The petitioner made a representation to the Registrar General of the High Court for cancellation of his transfer on 17.02.1998 (Annex.2) and allegedly proceeded on leave on 26.02.1998. According to the petitioner, while on leave, he was served with the relieving order on 04.03.1998.;