N. M. KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises under extraordinary circumstances and is based on allegations of deep intricacies suspected rivalries, intolerance of disloyally on jejune affairs, at the highest alter of judicial functionaries in the. State. It contains allegations as to how the Registrar of High Court appointed by one Chief Justice becomes an eye sore of other judges with whom he does not toe in line or does not fulfil their wishes.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was a practising lawyer at Jodhpur when he was offered an appointment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and he joined on November 21, 1977 as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Udaipur. He was confirmed in the month of November, 1979 after the completion of probation period. He was appointed as Registrar of Rajasthan High Court in the month of November, 1983 by the then Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee. Shri P. K. Banerjee retired on September 30, 1985 and the petitioner remained posted as Registrar until October 10. 1985. The petitioner has further alleged that from a perusal of the Annual Confidential Reports it would be revealed that he was an officer of outstanding ability and unquestionable integrity. However, to his surprise he was served with a communication dated August 16, 1986 whereby certain adverse remarks for the year 1985 were communicated to him. Against this communication dated August 16, 1986 the petitioner submitted a representation dated September 1, 1986 vide Ex. i. While the said representation was pending the petitioner was served with a memorandum dated January 27, 1987, issued under the signatures of Shri G. M. Lodha, J. , as the disciplinary authority proposing an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Disciplinary Rules') on the charges of allegations enclosed there with. A copy of the memorandum dated January 27, 1987, alongwith the statement of charges and statement of allegations has been submitted and marked as Ex. 2 alongwith enclosures 1 and 2. The petitioner thereupon submitted an application dated February 6, 1987 (Ex 3) seeking permission to inspect certain records. The petitioner inspected the record on March 24, 1987, and thereafter submitted an application dated April 3, 1987 (Ex. 4) before the Disciplinary Authority mentioning therein that the records asked for inspection by the petitioner had not been made available in original and as such the original documents may be made available for inspection and photostat copies of such documents may be given to the petitioner. Despite this the original documents were not made available for inspection and the petitioner moved another application on April 22, 1987 (Ex. 5) requesting therein that it may be recorded that the charges fail and inquiry be dropped. Alongwith this application (Ex. 5) the petitioner had also enclosed the photostat copy of the complaint which had been filed against him and which contained the following order passed by the then Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee on November 23, 1984: - "the complaints are all false and preposterous. The Registrar Bajwa is very honest and his integrity is unquestionable. No inquiry need be made. Reply in these lines may be sent to the Government. Sd/- P. K. Banerjee. 23. 11. 84. The petitioner further alleged that a photostat copy of the office note dated April 8, 1985 on which the post facto permission to sell the house had been granted to the petitioner by the then Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee was also enclosed with the application dated April 22,1987. The office note dated April 8, 1985 alongwith the order passed thereon by Shri P. K. Banerjee has been reproduced as under: "before my entering into service, my wife Mrs. Barinder Kaur Bajwa owned a house, "bajwa Bhawan" located at 12 Jalam Vilas Scheme, B Road Paota, Jodhpur. We decided to sell house to Shri Munni Lal Garg, Advocate, Jodhpur. In consonance with conduct Rules, I informed, in writing to the then Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri C. Honniah about our decision to sell the house. It was done in the month of August, 1978. His Lordship permitted me to go ahead with the sale transaction. The permission was accorded at Udaipur during his Lordship's visit there at. His Lordship had passed on the papers to His Private Secretary. To my dismay, the concerned papers are not available in the concerned file. Lest I should be put to some trouble lateron, it is requested that once again permission (post facto) to sell the above mentioned house be given. It is made clear that I have had no official dealings with Mr. Munnilal Garg. Advocate. Submitted. Sd/- S. R. Bajwa 8. 4. 85 Hon`ble C. J. post facto permission granted. Sd/- Pradyut Banerjee. 8. 4. 85" It was further alleged that as a corroborative fact while filling the annual property statement for the year 1978 the petitioner had specifically mentioned the fact of obtaining prior permission from the High Court regarding the sale of the house in question. It was further alleged that on April 22, 1987, the presenting officer on behalf of the High Court had stated before the Disciplinary Authority that both the above documents were not traceable in the records of the High Court and as such the same cannot be made available for inspection. The petitioner, in these circumstances, requested the disciplinary authority to record a finding with regard to the failure of the charges and to drop the inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority, however, desired the petitioner to file the reply to the charges and to raise such legal objections in the reply. The petitioner then filed a reply to the charges alongwith preliminary objections on April 5, 1987 vide Ex. 6. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider and did not pass any order on the preliminary objections taken by the petitioner in the reply and on the contrary an order was passed for proceedings with the inquiry and case was posted for recording the plea of the petitioner on April 13, 1987. Thereafter the plea of denial of the petitioners was recorded on May, 13, 1987 and the proceedings were posted to June 29, 1987 for admission denial of documents and further proceedings. The petitioner in para 7 of the petition has reproduced the orders of the disciplinary authority dated May, 5, 1987 and May, 13, 1987 in extenso. It is alleged by the petitioner that the presenting officer on behalf of the High Court took an absolutely unfair and unreasonable stand that the two documents purporting to be the orders of the then Chief Justice were not available in Registry and required the petitioner to be called upon to prove them. Not only that the Presenting Officer further expresses his inability to accept the genuineness of the two documents filed by the petitioner unless the original were made available and proved. Under these circumstances, when the Disciplinary Authority also in his order dated May 5, 1987 took the view that after consideration of reply read with charges and material on record further proceedings were warranted, the petitioner was left with no option but to file the affidavit of Shri P. K. Banerjee to prove the genuineness of the two orders passed by him. The petitioner has filed an affidavit of Shri P. K. Banerjee alongwith two enclosures marked as Ex. 7.
(3.) IT has been further alleged that during the course of inspection of record the petitioner found that the statement of Shri Munni Lal Garg was recorded with regard to charge No. 1 and two witnesses namely Gunwant Lal and Mishri Lal Gupta were recorded respectively with regard to charge. No 2 Copies of the statements of the above witnesses have been filed and marked as Exs. 8, 9, and 10 respectively. According to the petitioner the perusal of these statements would show that Shri Munni Lal Garg did not utter a single word against the petitioner in support of charge No. 1 and he only narrated the factum of purchase. Thus, there was no evidence to sustain the charge of seeling the house without prior permission. As regards the other witnesses with regard to charge No. 2 it has been submitted by the petitioner that besides inherent contradictions, improbabilities and the unnatural conduct, all that has been said by them is hear-say evidence. Thus except hear-say evidence there was no direct indirect or even circumstantial evidence to support charge No. 2 against the petitioner.- In para Nos. 9, 10 and 11 the petitioner has alleged certain facts against Justice D. P. Gupta and Justice S. K. Mal Lodha to prove malice for initiating the present disciplinary proceedings. The allegations of malice and ill will have been denied by Hon'ble Justice D. P. Gupta and S. K. Mal Lodha JJ. by filing their counter affidavits. We do not consider it proper nor necessary to record any finding with regard to the allegations of malice or ill will alleged by the petitioner as in our view the case can be disposed of on other grounds which we shall deal presently. The case of the petitioner is that it is a matter of record that the complaint which has been made the bedrock for initiation of this inquiry had been considered by the then Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee and he had passed specific orders that the complaint was false and preposterous and no inquiry was needed. When such order had already been passed by the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee it was not open for the successor Chief Justice Shri DP. Gupta to ignore the order passed by his predecessor or to sit in judgment over the order passed by his predecessor. Similarly, when post facto sanction had already been accorded by the then Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee, the Successor Chief Justice had no jurisdiction to initiate the inquiry again. It has been further alleged that requisite permission had already been taken as back as on August, 1978 at the time of the then Chief Justice Shri C. Honniah on his visit to Udaipur by moving an application in writing before him. This fact stood corroborated by the office note dated April 8, 1985 which was submitted by the petitioner before the then Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee. The sale was effected through two sale-deeds executed and registered on October 8, 1982 and the third sale deed executed on November 8, 1982 and registered on January 7, 1983. All these dates were subsequent to August, 1978 and in any case Shri P. K. Banerjee the then Chief Justice had granted post facto permission on April 8, 1985. It has thus been alleged that there was no material or justification to take any further proceedings with regard to Charge No 1. The only witness examined during the course of preliminary inquiry in support of this charge was Shri M. L Garg, Advocate, who did not say a single word about not taking the prior permission by the petitioner. As regard second charge it has been alleged that it related to an allegation that accused Heera Lal and Ganpat Lal were acquitted in consideration of an illegal gratification of R. 1,00,000/- taken by the petitioner. Further allegation is that the revision petition filed by the complainants for handing over gold to him was also disposed on account of illegal gratification taken by the petitioner. It has been submitted by the petitioner that above allegations are total tissue of lies. The gold was of course a subject matter of criminal charges in the case but at the time of decision of the revision as well as the appeal the gold was under the custody and control of the Central Customs Authority and the petitioner was not in a position to pass any orders with regard to handing over of the gold to either of the parties and hence the allegation that acquittal and handing over of the gold to accused appellants Heera Lal and Ganpat Lal by taking illegal gratification was totally false and untrue. The acquittal as well as the dismissal of the revision petition was ordered on merits in exercise of and due discharge of powers and duties of the petitioner as Sessions Judge and both these matters are sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court. It has been further alleged in this regard by the petitioner that the allegations of this charge are based on a pseudonymous complaint which bears certain scribbling simulating signatures. The identity and whereabouts of not a single signatory can be made out. The author of this complaint has been shown public member of bar, Jaipur, Kota and Jodhpur'. Such complaint can be managed and filed against any judicial Officer. In para 1 of the complaint it has been alleged that the petitioner had taken the few lacs and that the intermediary in the transaction was Mr. CD. Deval a very defamed RAS Officer. The petitioner during the course of inspection of records found that none of the two witnesses, who have been examined for this charge have said a single word about the alleged intermediary Shri CD. Deval and instead of few lacs, the allegation is for one lac. A perusal of the statements of Misbri Lal and Gunwant Lal examined in preliminary inquiry would show that their version is not only unnatural but wholly unbelievable and is not at all compatible with the conduct of a normal person. They have vaguely stated that some lawyer used to come from Jodhpur. Whatever depositions have been made by these persons are not based on their own knowledge and is based on merely hearsay. Thus, even from the perusal of the statements of these two witnesses no case at all is made out for holding any inquiry for charge No. 2. It has thus been alleged by the petitioner that it was a case of no evidence at all and what-ever material has been brought on record, stands controverted by the two docu-ments and the orders passed by the then Chief Justice Shri P. K* Banerjee. It has been further alleged that the petitioner had raised preliminary objections before the Disciplinary Authority alongwith the reply and it was the duty of the learned Disciplinary Authority to consider and decide the preliminary objections on merits before giving a direction to proceed with the inquiry on merits. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Rule 16 (4) of the Disciplinary Rules. It has been submitted that the only mention by the learned Disciplinary Authority in his order dated May 5, 1987 that "the consideration of the reply read with the charges and material on record warrant further consideration" is no considera-tion of the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner. It has been further alleged that the genuineness of the two documents placed on record by the peti-tioner was beyond doubt and there was no lawful justification for not acting upon the photostat copies pro-ducted by the petitioner especially when the Registry was relying on an unsigned typed copy of the complaint, the source and origin of which was not known. ;