SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a Judicial Officer. He has filed this petition with a prayer for quashing the order of punishment dated 11. 12. 1990, imposing a penalty of reduction in rank,i. e. , reversion from the post of the Additional Sessions Judge to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(2.) THE petitioner, Who was appointed as a Munsif & judicial Magistrate, in due course was promoted to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge on 21st October,1987. In that capacity, he passed judicial orders in a civil suit for redemption of a mortgage. After issuance of the summons, on 23. 05. 1988, the defendant had put in appearance on 24. 05. 1988. He filed a written - statement, admitting the plaintiffs claim. 26th of May, 1988 was fixed in the case. In view of admission made by the defendant, there was no further controversy to be decided by the petitioner. No issue was framed, and the suit was decreed in terms of the defendants admission on the same day. Thereafter, the plaintiff - decree - holder filed an application for execution on 30th May,1988. It was allowed. The following order was passed: - "30. 5. 88 - Advocate for the decree - holder present. Report of the Ahalmad (clerk) perused. The execution application be registered. Warrant of possession be issued. Details of property in the original decree sheet have been recorded on presentation of application in this regard. Therefore, counsel for decree - holder is directed to submit details of the property after obtaining necessary copies. Put up on 5. 8. 1988. " On 5. 08. the execution case was ordered to be consigned to record on the basis of the report of the Special Amin that the execution of the decree has been carried out on 19th of June, 1988, in pursuance of the warrant and subsequent order passed by the Court.
(3.) THE decree was passed with the consent of the parties. It has become final, as the defendant has neither filed any appeal nor revision against it till this date. On 23rd of August,1988, after about two months of the execution of the decree, a complaint was filed by one - Chiranji Lal Haldia alleging irregularities in the conduct of the judicial proceedings. He requested the Vigilance Judge and the District & Sessions Judge to enquire into irregularities committed by the petitioner. Admittedly, parties to the suit did not make any complaint. The complainant who was the original owner of the property had sold the same by registered sale - deed as far back as on 11th of January, 1965 to one Smt. Keshav Devi w/o. Jagannath Sharma, who subsequently sold the property to Kishan Lal by registered sale - deed. Kishan Lal, in turn, sold it to the Rajratan Financial corporation. All these sale - deeds were executed while the property was under mortgage with Smt. Ginni Devi. Chiranji Lal Haldia has no interest in the property now. Neither there was any cause to make a complaint against the petitioner nor he had a right to do so. ;