Moolchandani, J. - (1.) Validity of order dated 21.04.2011 and departmental enquiry report communicated vide letter dated 24.12.2010 has been questioned by this petition.
(2.) The factual aspect of the matter reveals that the court of the petitioner, while he was posted as Additional Civil Judge (SD) cum ACJM No.1 , Jaipur City, Jaipur, having additional charge of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Communal Riots, Jaipur City, Jaipur, was inspected by Registrar (Vigilance) on 22.07.2005 at 11.30 a.m. and on same day subsequently at 3.30 p.m., the petitioner was not found on the Dais, the explanation sought was found to be unsatisfactory and the same misdemeanor was in violation of Rule 8 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986, so he was subjected to an action under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the CCA Rules, 1958') and inquiry officer, after elaborate inquiry, found and held him guilty as being indolent in his work, exonerating him from the other charge of claiming wrong credit. As such, allegation No.1 which reads as under:- 1. That you, Shri Sushil Kumar Jain posted and functioning as Additional Civil Judge (SD) and ACJM No.1, since 03.06.2005 and prior to that posted as Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Jaipur City, Jaipur, since 25th January, 2006. Since 3.6.2005, you were holding additional charge of the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots) Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. That, when you were posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Jaipur City, Jaipur, having additional charge of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (SD) and ACJM No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and were also posted as Presiding Officer, Rent Control Tribunal.] 3. An anonymous complaint was received in the office of Registrar (Vigilance) that you are not punctual, sit late in the Court and do not work. To verify the allegations made in the complaint, the Court and office of yours were visited by Registrar (Vigilance) on 22.076.2005 at 11.30 A.M. 4. That, on 22.07.2005 at 11.30 A.M. Registrar (Vigilance) found that you Shri Sushil Kumar Jain were in the chamber. Normally at that time you have to sit in the Court on the dais. Thus, you have violated Rule 8 of General Rule, Civil, 1986. When you were asked by the Registrar (Vigilance) as to why you were sitting in the chamber it was told by you that you had dictated five judgments on that day. But this explanation was not true. On the contrary, in cause list dated 22.07.2005 no case was fixed for judgment or orders and on the table in your chamber following three files were found : (i) Smt. Pushpa Devi Mishra v. Ram Prakash Agarwal Original Petition No.1252/2004 . (ii) M/s. Kunstiff Profile Pvt. Ltd. v. Prabhu Dayal, Original Petition No.970/2004 . (iii) Rajendra Kumar v. Balkishan . 5. In all these three files the last date fixed was 20.07.2005 for arguments. But till 22.07.2005 there was no judgment in the file. In case of Pushpa Devi v. Ram Prakash Agarwal and M/s. Kunstiff Profile Pvt. Ltd. v. Prabhu Dayal , only partly typed judgment was in the file but no judgment was in the file of Rajendra v. Balkishan. 6. That, on the very said date on 3.30 P.M. Registrar (Vigilance) visited the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Jaipur. At that time too you were not on the dais but were in the Chamber. Upon being asked you stated that the court work is over and no file is remaining and on that day you decided Bail Application of two accused who were surrendered and you decided two applications u/s 446 Cr.P.C. In one case accused pleaded guilty and on the basis of plead guilty, you disposed the case. No other work was done in Communal Riots Court. 7. Thus, you are not punctual and not devoted towards your duty. The act of yours lowered down the image of judiciary and the people looses faith in the judicial system. 8. Thus, your act is of misconduct and unbecoming of Judicial Officer. was found proved against the petitioner-delinquent officer and he was held guilty under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958.
(3.) In consequence to the same, the said inquiry was considered by the Hon'ble Full Court and penalty of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect against the petitioner/delinquent officer was further resolved and ordained, which was communicated to him vide impugned order dated 21.04.2011. Subsequent to this, the petitioner/delinquent officer preferred an appeal under Rule 23(2) of the CCA Rules, 1958 against the order dated 21.04.2011, which was adjudicated upon by observing that the Resolution passed by the Full Court of all the Hon'ble Judges sitting together, subject to Chorum, thus cannot be subjected to appeal under the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 by a Committee consisting of three Judges of the Rajasthan High Court with a liberty to seek remedies available in accordance with law, including writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so, the petitioner/delinquent officer preferred instant writ petition.;