- (1.) THE order dated 19.12.2009 of the Registrar General of this Court, as the Disciplinary Authority, imposing on the writ -petitioner a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and the letter dated 23.03.2013 of the Registrar(Admn.), communicating to him the rejection of his representation dated 05.12.2012, principally constitute the subject matter of the challenge in the instant writ petition. An appropriate writ, order or direction has also been sought for to direct the respondents to reconsider his case for promotion to the post of Judicial Assistant, grant him the promotion with effect from 20.11.2012 and release his financial and other consequential benefits.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Gaur, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, Advocate appearing for the respondent -High Court. The pleaded facts, at the outset, would provide the background. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (presently renamed as Junior Judicial Assistant) vide order dated 04.01.2000 and as claimed by him, had been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities and satisfaction of all concerned. While he was working on the seat/digit of Civil First Appeal, an explanation was called for from him by the Deputy Registrar(Judicial) vide letter dated 10.04.2009, requiring him to explain as to why the name of one Counsel was not mentioned in the cause list. A reply was submitted by him, whereafter, a Memorandum was issued to him vide order No.I/A(iii)(A)(3)/4331, dated 27.08.2009, under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules 1958'), read with Rule 29 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules 2002'). The statement of allegations contained in the said Memorandum reads thus: - ''In S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.98/93 Bank of Baroda V/s Niranjan Prasad Gupta and others, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.02.09 directed to show the name of Shri A.K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent in the daily cause list, but the order of Hon'ble Court dated 19.02.09 was not complied with when the case was again listed in court on 09.04.09 and the name of Shri A.K. Sharma Advocate counsel for the respondent was not shown in daily Cause List inspite of specific directions of Hon'ble Court dated 19.02.09. Thus you, Shri Vijay Kumar Vashistha, Junior Judicial Assistant while posted and working on the digit seat of about case file failed to comply with the directions of Hon'ble Court dated 19.02.09 in the aforesaid case and did not show the name of counsel for respondent in the daily Cause List. Therefore, you, Shri Vijay Kumar Vashistha, Junior Judicial Assistant, has discharged the duties carelessly and negligently thereby committed gross misconduct. ''
(3.) AS would appear from the above extract, in substance, the essence of the charge against him was that he had not complied with the order dated 19.02.2009 of this Court and that he had discharged his duties carelessly and negligently and had thereby, committed gross misconduct.;