V.S.KOKJE,J. - (1.) THE petitioner who is a Judicial Officer has challenged an order of his reversion from the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate to the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was given a chargesheet dated July 23, 1985 in respect of interpolation and tampering of records relating to a type and shorthand test for the selection of Stenographer Gr. II held in Jodhpur District. Charge No. 1 was in respect of dishonest manipulation of result of the type and shorthand test in order to favour some candidates and charge No. 2 was in respect of being a party to Illegal and irregular acts which were unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and thereby failing to maintain absolute devotion to duty and dignity of office.
(2.) ON an enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated of Charge No. 1 but was held guilty on Charge No. 2. The Disciplinary Authority proposed a punishment of removal from service and. therefore, the matter came up before the Full Court. The Full Court decided not to impose penalty of removal from service but imposed penalty of reduction in rank. The petitioner again preferred an appeal which was placed before the Full Court which was also rejected by the Full Court on December 18, 1989 as not maintainable. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that at the enquiry reasonable opportunity to defend himself was not afforded to the petitioner in as much as relevant documents were not shown to the petitioner, request for examining of hand writing expert was declined, assistance of a lawyer was not allowed to him and speaking order was not passed by the Full Court. It was contended that the petitioner was not given access to the records which were materials for the purpose of enquiry. It was also contended that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he had filed a detailed reply. It was necessary for the Full Court to give good and sufficient reasons under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Some decisions of this Court were also cited in support of the aforesaid contentions.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.;