TYAGI, J - (1.) PETITIONER Anandilal, by this writ petition, has challenged the validity of the order of his removal from service passed by the Governor vide document No. 11 dated December 30, 1968 with the prayer that the impugned order be quashed and he be reinstated. He has also prayed that the order passed by the Chief Justice dated July 6, 1963, suspending him may also be quashed.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are in a nutshell as follows : A complaint was received by Hon'ble the Chief Justice against the petitioner, who was posted as Munsiff Magistrate, First Class, Nawa, that the petitioner had grossly misused his magisterial powers by issuing the warrant against one Ganpatia, who was responsible for getting the petitioner's father prosecuted before the Panchayat. At that time no case against Ganpatia was pending in the petitioner's court and, therefore, the allegation was that Ganpatia was illegally kept under detention for a week. THE complaint was sent for inquiry to the District Judge, Merta, who after making preliminary inquiry reported the matter to the High Court that the allegations made against the petitioner were not without foundation. THE Chief Justice then issued an order of suspension on July 6, 1963, under R 13 and 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called the'"'Rules of 1958") and sent the matter for inquiry to Hon'ble Mr. Justice C, B. Bhargava under rule 16(4) of these Rules. Two charges were framed by Justice Bhargava and the petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement of defence to the said charges. After making inquiry Mr. Justice Bhargava found the accused guilty of charge No. 1, i. e., misusing of his judicial power and proposed a penalty of removal or dismissal from service THE report of Mr Justice Bhargava was forwarded by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to the Governor for imposing the penalty on the petitioner as proposed by Mr. Justice Bhargava. A show cause notice under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution was issued to the petitioner by the Secretary to the Government proposing to inflict the penalty of removal or dismissal as suggested by Mr. Justice Bhargava and directed the petitioner to submit his reply to the Government. THE petitioner challenged the validity of the show cause notice by preferring a writ petition No. 1153 of 1964 in this Court mainly on the ground that Mr. Justice Bhargava was not competent to condact an inquiry as disciplinary authority- His main contention was that the disciplinary authority in a case of a judicial officer was the High Court, which according to Art. 216 of the Constitution means the Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint, and, therefore, according to the petitioner a Single Judge of the High Court even though he may be Chief Justice was not competent to initiate any disciplinary action against the member of the Judicial Service. He further contended that his case was never referred to the Full Court and, therefore, any action taken by the Governor issuing a show cause notice under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution on the basis of a report made by Mr. Justice Bhargava, was illegal. That writ petition filed by Anandilal was contested by the State Government, and the stand taken by the respondent was that u/R. 15 of the Rules of 1958, framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution, the Administrative Judge or a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, was a disciplinary authority for imposing any of the penalty prescribed under the said Rules except those of removal and dismissal from service and since Mr. Justice Bhargava was nominated under R. 15 by the Chief Justice of the Rajas than High Court, he was competent to frame charge under R. 16(2) of the Rules of 1958 and to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. This stand of the State was not accepted by the Bench consisting of Jagat Narain and Chhangani, JJ, and it was held that the enquiry report submitted by Mr. Justice Bhargava could not form the basis for issuing a show cause notice under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution as Mr Justice Bhargava was not appointed by the Full Court and therefore, the impugned show cause notice was quashed by the Court. Other questions which were raised by the petitioner regarding his suspension and the competence to proceed further with the enquiry, were, however, not decided by the learned Judges in view of the fact that the enquiry papers shall be placed before the Full Court before action is taken against the petitioner. It is common ground between the parties that thereafter the Full Court met on December 11, 1965, and discussed the inquiry report, made by Houble Justice Bhargava in the light of the observations made by the court. The Full Court accepted the inquiry report of Mr. Justice Bhargava and recommended to the Governor to impose the penalty of removal or dismissal on the petitioner for the charge that stood proved against him. A show cause notice was, therefore, again issued by the Government under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner raised various objections including the competence of justice Bhargava to initiate the disciplinary proceedings after framing charge and also contended that the Full Court did not all ow the personal hearing to the petitioner inspite of the fact that a specific request was made by the petitioner for the same. After a careful consideration of the report of Justice Bhargava and that of the Public Service Commission and the objections raised by the petitioner, the Governor came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of misusing magisterial powers and that in the circumstances the penalty of removal will meet the ends of justice and, therefore, the imp igned order dated December 30, 1968, was passed by the Governor.
(3.) THIS order has been challenged by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the Governor could not have inflicted any penalty on the basis of the report of Mr. Justice Bhargava, who was not competent to initiate the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner by framing charges and then making inquiry therein. According to the petitioner Mr. Justice Bhargava was not a disciplinary authority and, therefore, he could neither frame charges nor could he conduct the inquiry and recommend to the Government about the petitioner's removal from service and the subsequent acceptance of that report by the Full Court does not give any validity and cure the defects of that report which was from its very inception illegal. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order on the basis that it suffers from a fundamental defect of violating the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the Full Court, which considered the report of Mr. Justice Bhargava, did not allow the petitioner a chance of being heard personally, and that no disciplinary action could be taken against the petitioner for the act performed by him in a judicial capacity and since the warrant was issued by the petitioner for the arrest of Ganpatia in the discharge of his judicial function, his act was not subject to any disciplinary control of the High Court unless it was set aside by a competent judicial authority. It was also averred that the Full Court was not competent to validate the enquiry made by an incompetent authority by adopting his recommendation nor could the Governor accept such recommendations without going through the entire record, which was not submitted to him. In a joint reply filed by the State of Rajasthan and the High Court it is averred that appointment of Mr. Justice Bhargava to take disciplinary action against Judicial Officer was made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice Shri J. S. Ranawat on 28.11.1962, in the exercise of his power vested in him under a notification No. F. 3(1) Apptts/A/60/Group III (I) dated 16-9-1960. issued by the Governor under rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 and this inquiry was entrusted to Mr. Justice Bhargava by Hon'ble the Chief Justice Shri D.S. Dave on July 6-7-1963, who passed the following order. "Shri Anandilal is suspended with immediate effect. He will receive subsistence grant at the rate of one fourth of his pay during the suspension period. Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.B. Bhargava who has already been authorised by the then Chief Jus ice vide order No. 5/S.O. dated 23-1-63, will deal with the matter under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules." The said order of the Chief Justice, according to the reply filed by the respondents, had the effect of entrusting the inquiry to Mr. Justice Bhargava in the capacity of a disciplinary authority under rule 15 of the Rules of 1958 and, therefore, the proceedings taken by Mr. Justice Bhargava could not be challenged by the petitioner as proceedings taken by an incompetent person It is further averred that the report of Mr Justice Bhargava, after the judgment in writ petition No. 1153 of 1964 (Anandilal Verma V. State of Rajasthan) pronounced on December 7, 1965. came up for the consideration of the Full Court on December 11, 1965, and Full Court, which is a disciplinary authority, under Article 235 of the Constitution, adopted the report of Mr. Justice Bhargava and the recommendations made by him were accepted by the Full Court and it is on the decision of the Full Court that the Governor, after issuing show cause notice under Article 311 of the Constitution, removed the petitioner from service and, therefore, under these circumstances it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the order of removal on the ground that it was recommended by an authority which was not competent to take the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It was also averred that all the objections taken by the petitioner were considered by the Full Court and, therefore, there was no necessity for giving personal hearing to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, according to the respondents, the proceedings do not suffer from any defect of violating the principles of natural justice. Other minor objections raised by the petitioner that all the inquiry papers were not placed before the Governor when the impugned order was passed by him is, however, not admitted by the respondents. From these rival contentions the important questions that emerge for our determination are (1) whether the order dated 23 1-1963 passed by the C.J. nominating Mr. Justice Bhargava as a disciplinary authority for the purpose of R. 15 of the rules of 1958 under the notification issued by the Governor on 16 9 1960 was valid, and as such the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner who was a member of the Jud. Service could be initiated by Mr. Justice Bhargava by framing charges u/r. 16 and proceed to make enquiry into the allegations made against him; (2) whether the report submitted by Mr. Justice Bhargava after enquiry could be used by the Full Court to make its recommendation to the Governor for imposing a penalty of removal of the petitioner from service; (3) whether the enquiry made by Mr. Justice Bhargava was lawful; (4) whether the Full Court by considering the report of Mr. Justice Bhargava in its meeting of 11th December, 1965 ratified the appointment of Mr. Justice Bhargava as disciplinary authority and all the proceedings taken by him; (5) whether disciplinary action could be taken against the petitioner for the acts done by him in the discharge of his judicial duties without getting the order set aside on judicial side ; and (6) whether the Chief Justice alone was competent to suspend the petitioner. ;