G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) A Judicial Officer of Rajasthan has filed this writ petition against the High Court with the following prayer: - "it is, therefore, prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 23rd June, 1981 may be declared illegal and be quashed and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits as if the order dated 23rd June, 1981 was never passed. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner".
(2.) THE principal challenge is to the suspension order dated 23-6-81. Mr. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension order deserves to be quashed, firstly on the ground that an order both for initiation of enquiry as well as suspension can only be passed by a joint consideration of the Chief Justice and Administrative Judge, as required by clause I of the Circular of the Rajasthan High Court dated 30-10-71, which reads as under: - "the control under Article 235 is vested in the Full Court, but as it is not convenient for the Full Court to act in all matters the following delegation of powers is made by it: - 1. The Chief Justice and the Administrative Judge are empowered to initiate disciplinary action against Judicial Officers including District Judges. 2. The Chief Justice is empowered to place a Judge of a subordinate court under suspension under rule 13 (1) and to revoke such an order under rule 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Sub-Clause (3) and Sub-clause (4) read as under: - "3. (i) The Administrative Judge or a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice shall have the power to take disciplinary action and to impose on a Judicial Officer any of the penalties enumerated in rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, except those of removal and dismissal from service. (ii) The order of the Administrative Judge or a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice recommending removal or dismissal of a subordinate Judicial Officer shall be placed before the Full Court and the Full Court may accept the recommendation or reverse, modify or alter it in any manner it thinks proper. (iii) If the Full Court is of the opinion that a subordinate Judicial Officer should be removed or dismissed from service it shall send its recommendation to that effect to the State Government for necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. 4. With regard to the meetings of the Full Court the provisions contained in the Rajasthan High Court Rules will apply. " The second objection was that the disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated on the date the suspension order was passed, because the charge sheet has been served later on. Initiation of proceedings, according to Mr. Singhvi, means, service of the charge sheat, and in the absence of that since the proceedings have not been initiated, the order of suspension could not have been passed. Mr. Singhvi placed reliance on the judgment P. R. Nayak V. Union of India. (1)
(3.) MR. Khan appearing for the respondent invited my attention to Annexure-R. 3 and R. 4, which read as under : - Annexure-R. 3. "copy of orders of Hon'ble the Administrative Judge. H. A. J. Perused the reports of D. J. Udaipur and the statements of the witnesses recorded by D. J. during preliminary enquiry initiate Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 C. C. A. Rules, 1958 against Shri P. C. Agarwal. Looking to the seriousness of the matter, it appears expedient and necessary that Shri P. C. Agarwal be placed under suspension during the course of Disciplinary Proceedings. This matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders. Sd. P. D. Kudal. 09. 06. 1981. " Annexure-R. 4. "copy of orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at para 17 in file No. R/vig. /247/79 regarding complaint against Shri P. C. Agarwal, R. J. S. H. C. J. On the basis of the seriousness of the matter Hon'ble the Administrative Judge has not, only initiated proceedings under rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 but has also proposed that it will be proper and expedient to place the concerned officer under suspension during the pendency of enquiry against him. I agree with the views of Hon'ble the Administrative Judge in this regard and it is ordered that during the] pendency of departmental proceedings, Shri P. C. Agarwal, shall remain under suspension. During the period of suspension his head quarters will be at Bharatpur for the time being and he will be entitled to subsistence allowance as per rules. Sd. K. D. Sharma. 23. 6. 81. " According to Mr Khan, the words 'chief Justice' and 'administrative Judge' used in the above circular cannot be interpreted to mean a joint action by both in the form of a committee, but it means that both the Chief Justice as well as the Administrative Judge are independently entitled to initiate the proceedings. In this context, argued Mr. Khan, the word 'and' means 'or'. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench case, Ugam Raj Bhandari vs. The State of Rajasthan (2 ). ;