http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: R.C. SOOD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/05/1998

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T KIRPAL,J.      The petitioner who was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service,  has by  this petition under Article 32 of the  Constitution   of  India,   assailed  the  disciplinary proceedings which  have been  initiated against him pursuant to the  resolution dated  5th May, 1995 of the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court.      The petitioner had joined the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service as a District and Sessions Judge on 31st July, 1976. He had  been posted  and had  discharged duties  at  various places and  in different  capacities including  that  as  an Additional Registrar,  Rajasthan High  Court  and  Registrar (Vigilance), Rajasthan  High Court.  With  effect  from  1st July, 1989  to 1st  February, 1994 the petitioner was posted as Registrar  of the  Rajasthan High  Court.  After  he  was posted as  District  and  Sessions  Judge,  Jodhpur  on  2nd February, 1994  and then  was transferred  as  District  and Sessions Judge,  Jaipur with  effect from 6th June, 1994 but before his  superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years, departmental enquiries  were initiated  against him  on  two occasions. The first departmental enquiry was initiated by a resolution of Full Court dated 21st October, 1994, which was challenged by  the petitioner  by filling a writ petition in this Court.  By order  dated  22nd  November,  1994  in  the judgment reported  as R.C. Sood Vs. High Court of Rajasthan, 1994  (Suppl)  3  SCC  711,  this  Court  quashed  the  said disciplinary proceedings  and the Full Court’s resolution in respect thereto.  The second  disciplinary proceeding, which has  been   challenged  in  this  writ  petition,  has  been initiated by  the High Court vide its resolution dated 5/6th January, 1995. Rule nisi was issued by this Court limited to the question  of legality  of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against  the petitioner  and not on the question of his retirement on his attaining the age of 58 years.      There are  two sets  of facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid  two resolutions  by the High Court whereby it sought to  initiate  departmental  proceedings  against  the petitioner. Even  though the  resolution dated 21st October, 1994, when  the first departmental proceeding was initiated,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

has been  quashed by  this Court  vide judgment  dated  22nd November,  1994,   in  order,  however,  to  deal  with  the contentions arising  in this  petition, it  is necessary  to first refer  to the  set of facts pertaining to the issuance of the  first disciplinary  proceedings as  that  has  every material bearing in the present case.      First Disciplinary Proceedings:      When the petitioner was working as the Registrar of the Rajasthan High  Court the Full Court on 29th September, 1993 decided to  invite applications  to fill up the vacancies in the Rajasthan  Higher Judicial  Service  by  way  of  direct recruitment. A  draft advertisement  was  finalised  in  the Registry of  the Rajasthan  High Court  both in Hindi and in English, mentioning therein the conditions of eligibility of the candidates.  According to  the advertisement  which  was published the  age limit  of the candidates was shown as the minimum  of 35 years and maximum of 45 years on 1st January, 1995. As  the last  date for  receipt of the application was 18th March,  1994 and  20th March, 1994 the relevant cut off date should  have been  1st January,  1994. There  being  an error in  the publication of the advertisement in mentioning the relevant  date as  1st  January,  1995  instead  of  1st January, 1994,  a Committee of two Judges was required to go into the  matter. The Committee in its report suggested that fresh applications  be called  for and  the matter should be placed before  the Chief  Justice for taking suitable action against the  officer who  was responsible  for  issuing  the incorrect notification. The Chief Justice directed that this report  should   be  put   up  before   the  Full  Court  by circulation.  On   20th  October,   1994  the   Full   Court constituted a committee of two other Judges to look into the record leading  to the  issuance of  the notification.  This committee submitted  a report  dated 21st  October, 1994 and noted that  in  the  draft  for  publication  the  date  was correctly mentioned  as 1st  January, 1994  but  before  the matter was sent to press for publication interpolations were made changing  the year from ‘1994’ to ‘1995’. The committee further observed  that it  was their tentative view that the petitioner was responsible for the "forgery committed in the record". It  recommended that  a regular  enquiry be made in accordance with  the rules and that the petitioner should be placed under suspension in contemplation of the enquiry.      On 21st October, 1994 the date of the report of the two Judge Committee,  the Full  Court met at 2 p.m. and resolved that  departmental   inquiry  be   initiated   against   the petitioner and  he should  be placed  under suspension. This action was challenged by a Writ Petition (C) No, 680 of 1994 being fled  by the  petitioner in  this Court.  By  judgment dated 22nd November, 1994, in the case reported as R.C. Sood Vs. State  of Rajasthan  (supra),  this  Court  quashed  the proposed disciplinary  proceedings as  well as order placing the petitioner  under suspension.  While allowing  the  writ petition it was held that it was difficult to appreciate how the Two  Judge Committee  could come  to the conclusion that there was a forgery in the record and/or that any person had benefited from  the said  error or  that the  petitioner was responsible for the same.      The aforesaid  decision and direction of this Court did not result  in an  end to  the petitioner’s troubles. On the contrary the  facts, to  which we will currently refer, show how the  further prospects of the petitioner in the judicial career  were  successfully  thwarted  and  the  disciplinary proceedings have  been sought to be foisted on him, which is the subject matter of challenge in these proceedings.      Impugned Disciplinary Proceedings :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

    We will now refer, in some detail, to the second set of facts culminating  in the passing of the impugned resolution of the  Full Court  on 5/6th  January, 1995  instituting   a regular departmental  enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service  (Classification, Control  and  Appeal)  Rules 1958. The  story in  this connection  starts from September, 1993 when  one Vijay Singh describing himself as Chairman of the Rajasthan  Judicial Liberation  Front,  Bar  Room,  Beni Park, Jaipur  circulated a  complaint, though described as a ‘PIL -  a petition  under Article  226 of the Constitution’, addressed to  the Judges  of the  Rajasthan High  Court  and other functionaries.  It appears that a copy of the same was also sent  to the  State’s Law  Secretary. Vide  his  letter dated 15th September, 1993, the Law Secretary forwarded that complaint to  the Registrar  of the Rajasthan High Court. On 17th  September,   1993  the   Chief  Justice  directed  the Additional Registrar  (Vigilance) to  submit an early report in the  matter.  On  15th  September,  1993  the  Additional Registrar (Vigilance)  recorded statement of one Vijay Singh Poonia, Advocate,  President of  the  District  Court,  Beni Park, Jaipur  who stated  that there  was no organisation by the name  of Rajasthan  Judicial Liberation  Front  in  Beni Park, Jaipur  and that  he had not heard the name of such an organisation. He  further stated  that the signatures on the complaint were  not his  and that  he had  made no complaint against any  judicial officer.  The Additional Registrar had also called  for the  comments  of  the  petitioner  on  the complaint. After  receiving the  reply Additional  Registrar (Vigilance) recorded  further statements  of  other  persons including members  of the  Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and thereupon  submitted his report dated 11th January, 1994 to the  Chief Justice  stating therein  that  the  complaint against the  petitioner was  false and  fabricated.  On  the receipt of the report the Chief Justice passed the following order on 31st January, 1994.      "I   have gone  through the  report      submitted by  the Addl.  Registrar,      Vigilance, Shri  Behari Lal  Gupta,      in the  matter of  complaint  filed      against the  Registrar,  Shri  R.C.      Sood. The  report submitted by Shri      Gupta appears  to be  clear, cogent      and categorical.  He has dealt with      all  the  charges  that  have  been      levelled in  the complaint  against      Shri Sood.  All the  witnesses have      testified  to   the  good  conduct,      integrity  and  rightness  of  Shri      Sood. There  is no gain of truth in      the  allegations  levelled  against      Shri Sood.  It  appears  that  this      complaint  is  filed  against  Shri      Sood out  of malice.  I put it down      as the  handiwork of  some mischief      mongers. Thus the complaint is fled      and  no   action  needs   be  taken      against Shri Sood."      The matter thus stood closed as far as the complaint of Vijay Singh against the petitioner was concerned.      After the  petitioner had ceased to be the Registrar of the High  Court the  Chief Justice  issued  an  office  note relating to  complaints against  the judicial officers. This note dated  12th May,  1994 which was addressed to Registrar (Vigilance) and  Additional Registrar  (Vigilance)  read  as follows :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

    "A large  number of  complaints are      being received against the Judicial      Officers. It  has been noticed that      after Preliminary  Enquiry, most of      the complaints, i.e., more than 95%      are  found  false.  Sometime  P.E’s      consume a  lot of time and Judicial      Officers are  put to embarrassment.      Therefore,  before  initiating  the      P.E. against  any Judicial  Officer      complainant may be asked to support      his complaint with an affidavit.      If the  complainant does  not  file      the requisite  affidavit no  action      should be taken on that complaint."      The trouble for the petitioner revived after he had, on 24th October,  1994, filed the earlier writ petition in this Court  challenging   his  suspension   and   initiation   of disciplinary proceedings  by the  court’s  resolution  dated 21st October,  1994. From  the  perusal  of  those  original records which  had been placed before this Court at the time of hearing  by the learned counsel for the respondents it is seen that a hand written letter dated 27th October, 1994 was written to  the Chief Justice then in officer by Mr. Justice Kokje which reads as follows :      "I  am  enclosing  a  copy  of  PIL      petition received  by me  some time      back. As  it was  addressed to  the      Chief Justice, I did not forward it      then to  you. However,  when in the      last full  court meeting the matter      of Sh.  R.C,  Sood,  Distt.  Judge,      came up I found no reference to the      serious charges made against him in      the petition  by any  one.  As  the      allegations   are    serious   they      deserve    to    be    investigated      thoroughly.   I   would   therefore      request  you  to  kindly  order  an      inquiry  in  the  allegations  made      against  Sh.   R.C.  Sood   in  the      petition  especially  when  he  has      been proceeded  against on  certain      other charges."      On this  letter itself  the then  Chief Justice on that very day,  i.e.  27th  October,  1994,  made  the  following endorsement :      "Put up this matter in next F.C. In      the meantime  find out  if previous      C.J. has  received  such  copy  and      orders passed on."      The enclosure  to the  letter of  Justice Kokje  was  a cyclostyled copy  of the  same PIL/complaint  of Vijay Singh which had  been dealt with by the earlier Chief Justice vide order dated  31st January,  1994. After the judgment of this Court on  22nd November,  1994, whereby the writ petition of RC Sood  was allowed  with  costs,  the  storm  against  the petitioner gathered  momentum. On  30th November,  1994  the Full Court  took up  the letter  of 27th  October,  1994  of Justice Kokje  for discussion  under Agenda Item No. 3. Copy of the  minutes of  the said meeting pertaining to Item No.3 has been  placed before  us by  the learned  counsel for the respondents and the same reads as under :      "On   being   informed   that   the      complaint  of   which  a  copy  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

    appended  to   the   letter   dated      27.10.94 of  Hon’ble  Justice  Shri      Kokje had  been received earlier by      the  High   Court   a   Preliminary      Enquiry into  the allegations  made      therein had  also  been  held,  the      record of  Preliminary Enquiry  was      called  and  perused  by  the  Full      Court. It  was noted  that  such  a      serious matter  was  never  brought      before the  Full Court. It was also      noted that  the Preliminary Enquiry      against Shri  R.C. Sood then posted      as  Registrar   was  conducted   by      Additional   Registrar   (Vig)   an      officer   subordinate    to    him.      Proceedings  of   the   Preliminary      Enquiry  show  that  statements  of      persons who  were alleged  to  have      benefitted Shri  Sood were recorded      and in  place of  Shri Vijay  Singh      the complainant,  Shri Vijay  Singh      Poonia, President,  Bar Association      was   examined.    Statements    of      selected  judicial   officers   and      lawyers certifying  Shri Sood to be      a person  of  integrity  were  also      recorded  and  relying  on  such  a      material   serious    charges    of      corruption were  dropped.  Some  of      the  Hon’ble   Judges   have   also      received fresh  complaints  against      Shri  R.C.   Sood  making   serious      charges of  corruption. Considering      all  these  circumstances  and  the      serious nature of the charges it is      resolved as follows :      "RESOLVED that  the order passed by      the then  Hon’ble Chief  Justice on      the report  of Preliminary  Enquiry      against Shri  R.C.Sood conducted by      the Additional  Registrar (Vig)  be      and is hereby revoked."      FURTHER RESOLVED  that  Preliminary      Enquiry  in   the  matter  be  made      afresh by  a Committee  of  Hon’ble      Judge  consisting  of  Hon’ble  Mr.      Justice B.R. Arora, Hon’ble Justice      Shri V.S. Kokje and Hon’ble Justice      Shri B.J.  Sethana.  The  Committee      shall  also  eqnuire  into  various      complaints  forwarded  to  them  by      Hon’ble Judges  against  Shri  R.C.      Sood. It  is hoped  that the report      of the  Committee  will  be  placed      before  Full  Court  on  or  before      6.1.1995.      FURTHER  RESOLVED  that  facts  and      circumstances leading to a pendency      of  the   Preliminary  Enquiry   be      communicated to  His Excellency the      President of  India and Hon’ble the      Chief Justice  of India  in view of      the  fact   that  looking   to  the      seniority of  Shri  R.C.  Sood  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

    name  is   likely   to   be   under      consideration for  elevation  as  a      Judge of  the High  Court.  Hon’ble      the Chief  Justice be and is hereby      requested to do so."      The said  Three Judge Committee submitted its report on 4th  January,   1995.  After   formulating  the  points  for consideration and  discussing the material placed before it, it came to the following conclusion :      "The Committee,  though had a short      time at its disposal, has been able      to  collect  only  a  part  of  the      materials, but  on the basis of the      part  of   the  materials  too,  as      discussed above, we are of the view      that prima facie Shri R.C. Sood has      falled   to    maintain    absolute      integrity and  to maintain devotion      to the  duty  and  dignity  of  his      office. The  Committee is, also, of      the opinion  that a regular enquiry      under  rule  16  of  the  Rajasthan      Civil   Services   (Classification,      Control and  Appeal)  Rules,  1958,      may  be   held  against  Shri  R.C.      Sood."      Submissions :      Two main  contentions  were  urged  on  behalf  of  the petitioner. Firstly,  it was contended that with the passing of the  order dated 31st January, 1994 by Chief Justice K.C. Aggarwal the  complaint of  Vijay Sing  stood disposed  off. This complaint,  it was  submitted, could not br reopened by the Full  Court or  the then  Chief Justice  specially  when there were  no attenuating  circumstances by  way  of  fresh evidence or material which would warrant a fresh look in the matter - and there was no such material.      Secondly it  was submitted  that the  initiation of the impugned disciplinary  proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet levelling charges which were state and on materials gathered as an  after thought  was an  action tainted with malice and such proceedings  were liable  to be  quashed as  being mala fide and malicious in law.      First submission :      The complaint  of Vijay Singh had been enquired into by the Additional  Registrar (Vigilance),  on being directed to do so  by the  Chief Justice.  During the  course of enquiry witnesses were  examined and  report was  received whereupon the Chief  Justice on  21st January,  1994 passed  the above mentioned order.  Subsequently on  12th May, 1994, the Chief Justice had directed that no complaint should be entertained which is not supported by an affidavit. In the resolution of 30th November,  1994 reference  is  made  to  a  preliminary enquiry which  had been  made earlier  and it was noted that such a serious matter had never been brought before the Full Court. It  was also  stated that  statements of  persons who were alleged  to have  been benefited  by the petitioner had been recorded and in place of the complainant Vijay Singh it is one  Vijay Singh  Poonia, President  Bar Association, who was examined.  It is  because of  this resolution  that  the earlier order  of the  Chief Justice  and the  report of the preliminary enquiry were revoked.      The question  which arises for consideration is whether the Full Court could or was justified in revoking a decision which was  taken by  the then Chief Justice on 31st January, 1994. Chapter  III  of  the  Rules  of  the  High  Court  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

Judicature for  Rajasthan, 1952,  deals with  the conduct of the administrative business of the court. For the purpose of this case  the relevant  rules are  Rule 14, 15 and 32 which are as follows :      14.     Administrative     business      relating    to     control     over      subordinate    courts     and    to      superintendance  over   courts  and      tribunals :  -  All  administrative      business in  the Court  relating to      the control over subordinate courts      vested in  the Court  under Article      235   of    the   Constitution   or      otherwise      and      to      the      superintendance over the courts and      tribunals vested in the Court under      Article 227  of the Constitution or      otherwise shall  be disposed  of as      provided hereinafter.      15. Matters  on  which  all  Judges      shall  be   consulted  -   On   the      following matters all the Judges of      the  Court   shall  be   consulted,      namely :-      (a) proposals  as to legislation or      changes in the law ;      (b) proposals  as to  changes in or      the issue of new Rules of Court;      (c) proposals  as to  changes in or      the issue  of  new  rules  for  the      guidance of subordinate courts;      (d)  appointment,   promotion   and      seniority of judicial officers;      (e)   withholding   of   promotion,      supersession   or    reduction   of      judicial officer;      (f) removal  or  dismissal  of  any      judicial officer;      (g)   compulsory    retirement   of      Judicial officer  otherwise than by      way of punishment;      (h) important  questions of  policy      or those  affecting the  powers and      status of the court laid before the      Court by Chief Justice or any other      Judge;      (i)  matters   connected  with  the      Supreme Court;      (j) annual administration report;      (k)   matters    upon   which   the      Government desires  the opinion  of      the  Court,   if  such   matter  is      considered fit  to b  e laid before      the Court by the Chief Justice; and      (l)  any  matter  which  the  Chief      Justice   or   the   Administrative      Committee,  as   constituted  under      Rule 16,  may consider  fit  to  be      laid before them for consideration.      3.2   Effect of any irregularity in           or  omission   to  follow  the           procedure laid  down  in  this           Chapter -  (1) No irregularity           in, or omission to follow, the           procedure laid  down  in  thin

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

         Chapter   shall   affect   the           validity of  any order  passed           or anything  done under  these           Rules .      (2) For the removal of doubt, it is      hereby    mentioned     that    all      administrative work  disposed of by      the     Chief      Justice,     the      Administrative Judge  or Judges  to      whom the  work has been assigned by      the  Chief   Justice  for  disposal      shall be  deemed to  be disposed of      by the Court.      A perusal  of these  rules show  that matters where all the Judges are required to be consulted, namely, those which have been  brought to the Full Court, are enumerated in Rule 15. With  regard to  the judicial officers it is clauses (c) to (g)  which are relevant. It is only if a judicial officer is to  be removed  or dismissed  that the  matter has  to be brought before the Full Court. Under clause (i) if the Chief Justice desires  then any  matter can  be listed before t he Full Court.  Every complaint  received  against  a  judicial officer is  not required to be brought before the Full Court unless and until the question of removal or dismissal of the judicial officer  arises. It  was competent  for  the  Chief Justice especially  in view of the provision of sub rule (2) of Rule  32,  while  dealing  with  the  complaint  received against the petitioner, to decide that no action thereon was called for.  No illegality  or impropriety  was,  therefore, committed by  the Chief  Justice when  he  decided  on  31st January, 1994 that the complaint of Vijay Singh did not call for any  disciplinary action  against the  petitioner. It is only if  the Chief Justice was of the view that disciplinary action may  be called  for t  hat, by virtue of clauses (e), (f) and  (g) the  matter would  have required  to be brought before the  Full Court.  That apart, the Chief Justice could under clause (I) have brought the complaint to the notice of the Full  Court, but he chose not to do so. This was because he was  apparently satisfied  about the  hollowness  of  the complaint on  the basis  of the  preliminary report  of  the Additional Registrar (Vigilance) which was received by him.      We express  no opinion on the question whether for good and sufficient  reasons the Full Court can ever over-rule or recall an  earlier decision  of the  Chief Justice.  But the fact that  the preliminary  report was  not brought  to  the notice of  the Full  Court, which  the Chief Justice was not bound do,  could not be reason for recalling the order dated 31st January, 1994 of the then Chief Justice.      Another error which was committed was that the Court in its  resolution   of  30th     November,   1994  took   into consideration the  complaint of  Vijay Singh even though the same was  not supported  by an  affidavit. The Chief Justice had by  his order  dated 12th  May, 1994,  decided  that  no complaint against  a judicial  officer should be entertained unless it  is supported  by an affidavit. Though this was an administrative order  it was  passed by the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Rule 32(2) of the said Rules.  There was  no reasons  to why this order should have  been   ignored  and   the  complaint  of  Vijay  Singh entertained  even   though  it   was  not  supported  by  an affidavit. The resolution of 30th November, 1994 also states that some  of the  judges  have  received  fresh  complaints against the petitioner making serious charges of corruption. No particulars  are indicated  as to  which complaints  were received by  which judge.  It is evident from the wording of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

these minutes that what those complaints were, were not even known to  all the members of the Full Court when they passed the resolution  on 30th  November, 1994. We have, therefore, no doubt  that when  a valid  decision had been taken by the then Chief  Justice on  31st January  1994 exonerating  t he petitioner there  was no  valid reason  in law  for the Full Court to revoke that decision. Second Submission:      During the  course of  hearing  Mr.  Aruneshwar  Gupta, learned counsel  for the  respondent produced  in court  the original file  containing the  complaints received  and  the proceedings of  the aforesaid Three Judge Committee. We have carefully  examined  the  said  file  in  order  to  satisfy ourselves whether  the Committee  was fair  and judicious in the task  which was  entrusted to  it.  Without  going  into minute details, the file reveals following facts which speak for themselves.      On the  letter dated  37th  October,  1994,  the  Chief Justice made  a note  dated 27th October, 1994 calling for a report. But  the first  note of the registry relating to the letter dated  27th October,  1994 of  Justice Kokje is dated 9th November,  1994. The  suggestion made  in this  note was that the  file be  sent to vigilance cell because that dealt with the  complaints received against the judicial officers. The next note also dated 9th November, 1994 of the vigilance cell states  that its  report is placed along with the note. This is followed by a note also of 9th November, 1994 of the Chief Justice  stating that  "put up  in next  Full  Court". Curiously enough  the report  mentioned in  the note  of the vigilance cell is not on the record filed in court though it purported to be a part of vigilance section’s note. There is then an  undated note  which appears  to be the minutes of a meeting of the Three Judge Committee which is in the file in which it  is,  inter alia, stated that initially it has been decided  to  call  seven  witnesses  for  their  examination relating to  various charges  against  the  petitioner.  The Committee also  decided to  call for  the valuation  of  the house belonging to the petitioner from the Valuation Cell of the Income-tax  Department as  well as  the Chief  Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan,  Jaipur. These minutes are signed by all the three judges  of the committee. There is then a confidential note dated  9th  December,  1994  signed  by  Justice  Arora directing the  registry to  summon four  witnesses mentioned therein for  19th December,  1994 and  three other witnesses named therein  for 20th  December, 1994 . The file discloses that as on 30th November, 1994 there were written complaints made by  seven persons against the petitioner apart from the complaint of  19th September, 1993 of Vijay Singh. The other complaints are  either dated  26th November,  1994  or  30th November, 1994  or are undated. Even though there were seven complainants only  three of them were summoned as witnesses. There is no indication as to why four other persons were not summoned. Of  these seven  witnesses who  were summoned only three, including two of the complainants, were examined. Two other persons  who were  examined were  those in  respect of whom  no  summons  were  ordered  to  be  issued.  Thus  the Committee examined  five witnesses out of which M.R. Mitruka and Vijay Singh were the two complainants, K.R. Jatav is the only other  witness who  was summoned  vide order  dated 9th December, 1994.  N.K. Mahamwal and O.P. Sharma were examined even though  they were  neither the  complainants as on 30th November, 1994  nor had  been summoned  vide order dated 9th December, 1994.      Before  adverting   to  these   five  witnesses  it  is important to  note that  the file  contains  copies  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

summons  dated  9th  December,  1994  issued  to  the  seven witnesses but,  curiously enough,  not even a single copy of the summons  bears an  endorsement of  the  receipt  by  any witness. The  file also  does not contain any other document showing that  the witnesses  to whom summons had been issued were served  at the addresses contained in the summons. This fact is  important to note because it  has been contended by Mr. Kailash     Vasudev, learned counsel for the petitioner, which contention  we will  consider later,  that Vijay Singh who is described in the complaint and is stated to have been examined by  the Committee was not a lawyer and Vijay Singh, to whom  summons were alleged to have been issued at the Bar room address,  was a  non existent  person. The  file of the Committee also  includes written  complaints in  the form of affidavits of five other persons. Two of them are dated 31st December, 1994,  one 1st  January, 1995 and another is dated 2nd January, 1995. When the Full Court had on 30th November, 1994 stated  that the Committee was to go into the complaint of Vijay  Singh and  any other  complaint  received  by  the Judges, it  is not  understandable as  to why  any complaint received after  30th November,  1994 was  entertained by the Committee. Another  important feature  to note is that apart from  Vijay   Singh’s  complaint   of  1993  all  the  other complaints are either undated or received after this Court’s judgment of 22nd November, 1994.      Another notable  feature  of  the  Enquiry  Committee’s report  is   that  though   a  Three   Judge  Committee  was constituted the witnesses to whom summons were issued on 9th December, 1994  appear to  have been  selected by  the local judge Justice Arora. The examination of witnesses took place on  20th  and  21st  December,  1994  at  Jodhpur  and  29th December, 1994  at Jaipur.  What is,  however, revealed from the file  is that  these witnesses were examined only by two of the  Three Judges and Justice Sethna did not take part in the examination  of the witnesses and was not present at the time of  the examination even though he has signed the final report.      The only  complaint  before  the  Full  Court  on  30th November, 1994  was that of Vijay Singh. In the affidavit in rejoinder the  petitioner has averred that the complaint was stated to  have  been  made  by  Vijay  Singh  of  Rajasthan Judicial Liberation  Front. The  person who  was examined by the Committee was Vijay Singh son of Madan Singh resident of 179, Kalidas Marg, Beni Park, Jaipur. It is contended by the petitioner that no person by the name of Vijay Singh resides at the  said address  and there  is  no  such  front  called Rajasthan Judicial  Liberation Front.  In  support  of  this averment reliance is placed on a report of the SHO, PS, Beni Park, Jaipur, company of which has been filed in Court along with its  English translation,  which inter alia states that on verification  it has been found that there is no plot no. 179, Kalidas  Marg, Beni  Park, Jaipur.  This report further states that plot no. 179, Sindhi Colony, Jaipur, is owned by one Tulsi Ram and plot no, 179 Indira   Colony   by   Shambu Dayal and in both these plots Vijay Singh son of Madan Singh did not  reside. The  petitioner has  also filed certificate from Rajasthan  High Court Bar Association, Jaipur, District Advocates Bar  Association, Beni  Park, Jaipur  and the  Bar Association District  Court dated  31st October,  1995, 27th October, 1995  and 17th  October, 1995,  respectively and in each of these certificates it has been stated that no person by the  name of  Vijay Singh  son of Madan Singh resident of 179, Kalidas  Marg, Beni  Park, Jaipur, is a member of their association. Lastly  an  affidavit  of  Vijay  Singh  Sharma (Brahmin by  caste) son  of K.M.  Sharma, Advocate  has been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

filed in  which he  has stated  that he  has not  filed  any complaint against the petitioner and that to the best of his knowledge no  other person by the name of Vijay Singh Sharma was practising  in the  District Court  or at  Jaipur.  Even though this  rejoinder affidavit  was filed in this Court on 14th November, 1995, none of the averments contained therein in relation  to Vijay  Singh  or  other  persons  who  spoke against the petitioner have been rebutted by the respondents either by  filing a  sur rejoinder  or even  at the  time of arguments. This  would clearly show that Vijay Singh who was examined by  the Committee was certainly not an advocate and was in  all probabilities  an impostor.  Who that person was who was examined by the Committee remains unexplained.      It appears  that the  Committee was  only looking for a person who  was ready  to depose against the petitioner even if  he   be  an   imposter.  This   conclusion  is   further strengthened by  the selection  of four other persons by the Committee whose evidence is on record. Of these M.R. Mitruka had filed a complaint dated 30th November, 1994 supported by an affidavit  dated 1st  December, 1994  which means that on the day  when the  Full Court  passed the resolution on 30th November, 1994  the complaint along with the affidavit could not have  been on the record. This witness who had chosen to file an  affidavit against  the petitioner  after  the  Full Court resolution  on 30th November, 1994 was an ex member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service who had been removed from the service in  1982. The  petitioner  herein  had  conducted  a preliminary enquiry  in the  charges which  had been  framed against  Mitruka   and  it  is  after  the  receipt  of  the preliminary  report   of   the   petitioner   that   regular departmental  proceedings   against   him   were   initiated culminating in  awarding  the  punishment  of  removal  from service by  the Full  Court of the Rajasthan High Court. The other person chosen to be summoned by the Committee was K.R. Jatav, also  belonging to  the judicial  service. There were some allegations against him and the petitioner, when he was posted as  Registrar (Vigilance) had conducted a preliminary enquiry as  a result  whereof he  was awarded the penalty of censure. Subsequently  some more  complaints  were  received against K.R.  Jatav and on further enquiry by the petitioner disciplinary  action  was  taken  against  him  and  he  was superseded on  the basis  of this  report and  bad ACRs.  He obviously was inimical towards the petitioner. N.K. Mahamwal is also  a member  of the Rajasthan Judicial Service against whom complaints were made by the members of the Bar alleging misbehaviour towards  advocates  which  has  resulted  in  a preliminary enquiry  being conducted  by the petitioner when he was  posted as Registrar (Vigilance). As a result thereof N.K.  Mahamwal  was  transferred.  Later  another  complaint against him was received for misbehaviour with the advocates and litigants  and again  on the  report of the petitioner a warning was  administered to  Mahamwal. At the time when the petitioner was  posted as  District Judge,  Udaipur, he  had also reported  against the bad behaviour of Mahamwal who was posted as Munsif Magistrate under his charge. As a result of all this  N.K. Mahamwal  had been superseded and many of his juniors had  been promoted.  He, therefore,  obviously  must have borne  grudge against the petitioner. O.P.Sharma’s, the last witness  to the  examined also belongs to the Rajasthan Higher Service  against whom  two complaints  were  received when the  petitioner was  posted as  Registrar  (Vigilance). There were  serious complaints  in relation to O.P. Sharma’s integrity which were received by the High Court and one such complaint had  been received  by t he petitioner when he was working as  Additional District Judge, Jaipur city which was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

forwarded by  him to  the Additional  Registrar  (Vigilance) which had resulted in a preliminary enquiry and a subsequent disciplinary proceedings  against him.  It is  further  seen that of  all the  affidavits in the form of complaints which were received by the Committee after 30th November 1994, two of them were from those persons who were formerly members of the Rajasthan Judicial Service who had been removed. One  of them had  sought voluntary  retirement  after  he  had  been superseded on  account of  poor service record and the other was compulsorily  retired  by  the  High  Court.  The  third affidavit  dated  2nd  January,  1995  was  of  yet  another judicial officer  against whom  disciplinary proceedings had been initiated  and an FIR had been lodged in respect of the alleged murder of the husband.      Based on  such type of evidence the Committee submitted its report  on 4th  January, 1995  signed by  all the  three Judges. It is but natural that highest standard of integrity is expected  of and  is required  to be  maintained by every judicial officer.  It is  with this in view that even though the impugned  initiation of  proceedings is being alleged to be for  mala fide  reasons that  it is proper to see whether the allegations  against the  petitioner were  such which in any way  warranted the holding of a disciplinary proceeding. We  have,  therefore,  carefully  seen  the  report  of  the Committee and the complaints against the petitioner in order to satisfy  ourselves whether  there was any cogent material which warranted  initiation of  disciplinary proceedings. We do not  find, after  such  examination,  that  any  material existed which  could justify  the initiation of the impugned action.  The   allegations  against   the  petitioner   were generally vague  or were such which stood explained from the record itself  or were  such which  did not  show  that  the petitioner  had  committed  any  irregularity,  leave  alone illegality. For  example one of the main allegations against the petitioner  was of  his having committed irregularity in obtaining loan for constructing a house. Apart from the fact that this loan was sanctioned by the then Chief Justice, the petitioner has  with the  assistance of the loan constructed the house  and is  living there  and the loan amount already stands returned.  In such circumstances for the Committee to come to  a  conclusion  that  the  disciplinary  proceedings should be initiated was clearly unwarranted.      Apart from  the non-judicious manner in which the Three Judge  Committee  conducted  the  enquiry  the  sequence  of events, which bears repetition, shows that being piqued with this  Court’s   judgment  quashing  the  first  departmental enquiry the  High Court, with a few functionaries playing an active role, left no stone unturned with a view to victimise the  petitioner.  On  21st  October,  1994  the  High  Court suspended the  petitioner and  decided  to  hold  the  first departmental enquiry.  On 24th October, 1994 this suspension was challenged  by way  of a  writ petition in this Court in which this  Court on  7th November,  1994 issued  show cause notice to the High Court. Suddenly we find on the High Court record Justice  Kokje’s  letter  dated  27th  October,  1994 forwarding to  the then  Chief Justice  the old complaint of Vijay Singh.  The Chief Justice makes an endorsement on this letter on  the same  date -  thereby showing  the  sense  of urgency. First  office note is written only on 9th November, 1994, after  issuance of  notice by  this Court  in the writ petition filed  by the  petitioner. The fact that it is only on 30th  November, 1994, after the decision of this Court on 22nd November, 1994, that the Full Court fixed up the matter lends credence to the petitioner’s submission that the dates which appear on record may not be real. This is more so when

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

we find that none of the documents in the form of complaints allegedly received  by the Judges bear any endorsement as to the date  of receipt of the same. To crown it all the second round started  on a  complaint of Vijay Singh stated to have been received  by Justice  Kokje on  or before 27th October, 1994. This  complaint had been circulated in September, 1993 amongst all the then Judges of the High Court and in respect of which  order was passed by the them Chief Justice and the matter  was  closed  on  31st  January,  1994.  Respondents’ counsel could  give no  explanation as  to how Justice Kokje got this  complaint against  the petitioner some time before 27th October  1994 when  he was transferred to the Rajasthan High Court  only on  28th April,  1994.  At  that  time  the petitioner had  ceased to be the Registrar of the High Court with effect  from   1st February, 1994. It is obvious that a copy of  this complaint  was handed over to Justice Kokje by some one   who  was interested in harming the petitioner and thereupon the  second round of action against the petitioner commenced with  Justice Kokje  being made one of the members of the Three Judge Committee.      We have  no manner  of doubt  that there was a complete lack of  bona fides  on the  part of  the High Court when it decided on  5th  January,  1995  to  institute  disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. On this ground alone the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Conclusions :      Normally enquiry  committees are  set up  in  order  to ascertain correct  facts. Here, however, we have a situation where a  committee consisting  of   a local  judge  and  two transferred judges  was set  up with the local judge sitting alone and  collecting a  menagerie of  witnesses who  had  a grudge against  the petitioner  and were thus sure to depose against him.  Some of these witnesses were those who had not sent any  complaint against  the petitioner  prior  to  30th November, 1994  and it  is only the local judge who, wanting to gather  statements against  the  petitioner,  could  have known whom  to approach  and call  for evidence.  Of the two transferred judges  who were  members of  the committee, one never took part in any proceeding when evidence was recorded between 20th  February and  2nd January,  1995. Yet he signs the report  dated 4th  January, 1995.  The other  transferee judge is  the person  who set  the  ball  rolling  with  his conjuring up  Vijay Singh’s  complaint which  had originally been  circulated   long  before   the  judge’s  transfer  to Rajasthan. The respondent’s counsel was unable to explain as to how  this  complaint  was  conveniently  placed  in  this judge’s hand.  It is  evident that  there was  a  deliberate design to  bring to  a premature  end the judicial career of the petitioner, whose name, at that time, was being actively considered for  elevation  as  High  Court  Judge.  This  is apparent from  the fact  that in  the resolutions dated 30th November, 1994  and 5th January, 1995 it was resolved by the Full Court that the President of India and the Chief Justice of India  should  be  informed  about  the  holding  of  the departmental enquiry  against the  petitioner. Acting on the basis of  the Committee’s  blased report  the Full Court, we are sad  to note, continued in similar vein and proceeded to nail the  petitioner  by  taking  a  decision  which  lacked objectivity. Apparently  stung by  the judgment  dated  22nd November, 1994  of this  Court it  retaliated by launching a fresh set  of charges  against the petitioner clearly with a view to  ruin his judicial career. We have no doubt that the action taken  by the  court was not bona fide and amounts to victimisation.  This   is  certainly  not  expected  from  a judicial forum,  least of  all  the  High  Court,  which  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

expected to  discharge its  administrative duties  as fairly and objectively  as it is required to discharge its judicial functions.      The proceedings  of the  meeting of  the Full Court are normally supposed  to be confidential. How is it then that a number of complaints were received against the petitioner at about that  time, i.e.,  30th November,  1994. Some  of  the complaints on  the file  of the  Three Judge  Committee  are undated and  it is not known when they were received. On two complaints the  date is 26th November, 1994, but they do not have supporting  affidavits. It is, therefore, possible that these complaints  may have  been ante-dated  specially  when none of  these complaints bear an endorsement signifying the date of  their receipt.  The complaint  of Mitruka  is dated 30th November,  1994 but  the affidavit  supporting is dated 1st December, 1994. The fact that an enquiry was going to be conducted against the petitioner was not publicly advertised which could  have resulted in complaints being filed, how is it then  that after  the judgment  of  this  Court  on  22nd November, 1994  and about the time the resolution dated 30th November, 1994  was passed,  unsolicited complaints  started coming in.  We have  no doubt that all these complaints were procured solely  with a  view to  show that  a part from the original  complaint   of  Vijay   Singh  there   were  other complaints against  the  petitioner  which  represented  new material justifying  a fresh enquiry. These complaints, some of them  being made  by discredited persons containing vague and general  allegations could not, in our view, be regarded as fresh  material which  required disciplinary  proceedings being initiated.  The said  complaints  did  not  merit  any serious considerations  and reference  to them  by the  High Court was  uncalled for. In this connection we reiterate the sentiments  expressed  by  this  Court  while  allowing  the petitioner’s writ  petitions on the earlier occasion when at page 716 of the report it was observed as follows :      "This  case  leaves  us  very  sad.      Entrustment of the ‘control’ of the      subordinate judiciary  to the  High      Courts by enactment of the relevant      provisions in  the Constitution  of      India,  particularly   Article  235      therein  is   for  the  purpose  of      ensuring  their   independence  and      protection      from      executive      interference.  At   a   time   when      fairness and  non-arbitrariness are      the essential requirements of every      administrative State  action, it is      more so  for any administrative act      of the Judges. It is necessary that      members    of    the    subordinate      judiciary get  no occasion to think      otherwise.  We   are  afraid,  this      incident  appears   to  shake  this      faith.  We   do  hope   it  is   an      inadvertent exception."      We are  sorry to  note that the said hope stands belied and notwithstanding  the  aforesaid  observations  the  High Court acted  in the  manner which  can  only  be  termed  as arbitrary and unwarranted, to say the least.      For  the   aforesaid  reasons  this  writ  petition  is allowed. The  entire disciplinary  proceedings initiated  by the High Court against the petitioner together with the Full Court’s resolutions  dated 30th November, 1994; 5th January, 1995 and  6th January,  1995 are quashed. We also direct the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

respondents - High Court of Rajasthan to pay Rs. 20,000/- as costs to the petitioner.