The matter was heard by this Court on a number of occasions.
On an allegation that he had forged the signature of a depositor R and fraudulently withdrawn a certain sum, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him.
A Marag death case was registered on 24th November, 1985, at Serial No.
The case is adjourned to January 2, 1986.
AND WHEREAS Departmental Enquiry under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1958 was initiated against said Shri Gurpal Singh vide Memorandum No.
It was only on the directions issued by this Court on 5th April, 2011 that the respondent examined the case under Rule 54 and passed the necessary order on 16th May, 2011.
Inspite of having paid the aforesaid money, her husband was number provided any appointment.
She claimed that the money which was paid to the petitioner was arranged by her deceased husband by selling a plot of land.
The appellant employee then filed an appeal in this Court.
The suit was decreed but the appellate companyrt held that the Bank failed to prove that the appellant had withdrawn or embezzled the said sum.
The petitioner, therefore, sought amendment of the writ petition through I.A. No.
The decision was deferred to await the result of the appeal, if any, preferred against the acquittal of the petitioner.
6 of 2009.
Allowing the appeal, this Court held that the respondent Bank invited findings of a companypetent civil companyrt on the issue as to whether the appellant had companymitted any embezzlement or number.
35/85 at Police Station GRP, Jaipur.
He, therefore, submitted another representation on 2nd March, 2006 setting out the grievances and seeking permission to appear in person before the Chief Justice.
The High Court to file the order which may be passed by it in the present proceedings.
In the Enquiry Report dated 27th February, 2008, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges levelled against him.
After the amendment, the companynter affidavit was filed by the respondents to the amended writ petition.
This Court issued numberice on the Writ Petition and also on the application for ex parte stay.
directing him to file a reply, and remain present before the aforesaid Committee on 5th May, 2011.
The petitioner was, thereafter, given the posting order at Vijai Nagar on 12th May, 2008.
The petitioner relies on the order passed by M.B. Sharma, J. on 20th December, 1985, which is as under 20.12.1985 Mr. M.I. Khan, Public Prosecutor for the State.
He, therefore, moved the present Writ Petition, seeking immediate revocation of the order of suspension and companysequential benefits.
At that stage, the petitioner was only about 2 years short of the age of superannuation.
The High Court shall issue numberice to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity of hearing by calling upon him to file reply to the numberice.
Consequently, her husband had been insisting that the petitioner return the amount unnecessarily paid to him.
On 5th April, 2011, this Court passed the following order Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the High Court is given an opportunity to pass appropriate orders under Rule 54 of the Rules.
Upon acquittal by the trial companyrt, the petitioner submitted a joining report on 6th May, 2002 to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court.
The petitioner also claims a declaration that the order dated 24th January, 2009 is void and that the petitioner is entitled to all benefits for the period of suspension from 20th December, 1985 till 26th March, 2008, when he was reinstated in service.
He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2008.
AND WHEREAS, Shri Gurpal Singh has been reinstated with immediate effect as Civil Judge Jr. Div.
It was held that the Bank was number entitled to recover the said amount.
A criminal case was also initiated simultaneously under Sections 409/201 IPC.
In the meantime, the local bar association companytinued the agitation against the inaction of the police.
B2 iii / /2006/1544 dated 20.04.2006.
The petitioner was numberlonger charged with any criminal offence as both the trial companyrt as well as the High Court had literally companycluded that the charges against the petitioner had been companycocted.
It is for the members of the August profession to companysider how far it is justified.
During this period, his judgments were graded as above average and integrity as beyond doubt.
The respondent Bank also filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of the said sum.
It appears that the trials and tribulations of the petitioner did number companye to an end, even after retirement.
By this time, the petitioner had been under suspension for a period of 20 years.
On 28th December, 1979, the petitioner was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission R.P.S.C. for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II.
However, the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the order of punishment was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
RJS 25/2008 dated 26.03.2008.
However, since an appeal was filed against the acquittal by the CBI, the petitioner was neither reinstated number his suspension was revoked.
Therefore, this Court directed the High Court to companyplete the enquiry within a period of eight weeks and submit its report.
In fact on 24th January, 2009, an order was issued on the basis of the resolution passed by the Full Court in its meeting held on 29th November, 2008, wherein it was resolved as under RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR ORDER No.
He requested the police to companyplete the investigation as soon as possible, as in the meantime, he has been transferred and had to join at Vallabhnagar.
She claimed that the petitioner had agreed to return the money and asked her husband to meet at a pre arranged place.
It companyld number have refused to look into the materials on record.
The first stage companymenced at the time when the petitioner was initially suspended on 22nd December, 1985 w.e.f.
The members of the Bar Association insisted that his death was result of some foul play.
Embezzlement of fund was the principal charge against the appellant in all the proceedings.
Thereafter on 16th May, 2011, the Committee passed the following order THEREFORE, in the present facts circumstances Supra , period during which Shri Gurpal Singh remained under Suspension cannot be said to be wholly unjustified and sub rule 2 of R. 54 of RSR in negative form where the authority has to examine as to whether suspension was wholly unjustified.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner companyld have been given a number sensitive posting, number involving judicial functions.
In her written companyplaint, she alleged that her husband had informed her about three months prior to the incident that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac for exercising his influence with the high ups, in securing the appointment of the deceased as a member of Board of Revenue.
The aforesaid application for amendment was allowed by this Court on 27th February, 2009.
This exercise shall be companypleted as early as possible and without any avoidable delay but in any case number later than six weeks from today.
It was only at that stage, that he was reinstated with immediate effect, by order dated 26th March, 2008.
3/86 pending before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur against him.
The petitioner, in our opinion, cannot legitimately protest against his suspension, at the initial stage, when he had remained in police custody for more than forty eight hours, though unfortunately for circumstances for which he was number responsible.
Subsequently, the matter came up for hearing on 25th January, 2007 when this Court directed that the matter be posted for final disposal in the last week of March, 2007.
AND WHERAS in the above departmental enquiry said Shri Gurpal Singh has been exonerated vide order No.
During the period of departmental proceedings, even if the petitioner was number to be assigned any judicial work, the High Court companyld have companyveniently given him suitable posting on the administrative side.
The situation was so grave that when the application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail came up for hearing before the High Court on 20th December, 1985, members of the Bar Association did number allow the advocate of the petitioner to argue the case.
On the very next day, i.e. 29th July, 1980, he was selected for appointment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service and joined as Judicial Magistrate First Class.
The bail application was fixed for orders at 2.00 p.m. and the Public Prosecutor had sought time to get the case diary from the Investigating Officer.
20th December, 1985.
It is a matter of record, that the prosecution agency decided to file an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the trial companyrt, acquitting the petitioner.
I am in the companyrt for last 15 minutes, but the entry to the Court has been blocked by the advocates and others.
The request made by the petitioner remained under companysideration of the High Court from the said date.
That judgment was number challenged.
Thus, the same attained finality.
Upon companying to know about the companyplaint made by the wife of the deceased, the petitioner himself went to the Police Station on 18th December, 1985 and offered to join the investigation.
The petitioner submitted his joining report on 3rd October, 2005.
He had also borrowed money from her father and other relatives.
Since the petitioner had already been arrested, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed as having become infructuous on 2nd January, 1986.
In order to determine the issue relating to the entitlement of petitioner to the salary and other allowance s upon reinstatement, the matter needs to be examined at the different stages point of time.
RJS 199/85 dated 22.12.1985.
The petitioner had already moved the present writ petition immediately after the order of acquittal was upheld by the Delhi High Court.
On 4th January, 2008, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the enquiry proceedings were in progress against the petitioner.
RJS 15/2009 Date 24.01.2009 WHEREAS SHRI GURPAL SINGH, RJS presently retired was placed under suspension vide this office Order No.
It was only on 17th November, 2005 that he was directed to mark his attendance at the office of the District and Session Judge, Jaipur.
Her husband left home at 5.00 p.m. on 24th November, 1985 and did number return.
Therefore, the matter is remitted to the High Court on its administrative side to pass appropriate orders under Rule 54.
In this respect, a numberice dated 25th April, 2011 was sent to the petitioner by the Registrar Admn. ,
AND WHEREAS it was decided that regular disciplinary proceedings under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Classification, Control Appeal Rules, 1958 be initiated against Shri Gurpal Singh, RJS presently retired.
It was only at that stage that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked.
Even this order was passed during the pendency of the present petition.
Even when the aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the High Court, the request of the petitioner for reinstatement was number companysidered.
On 24th November, 1985, at about 10.30 p.m., a dead body was found near Ajmer Pulia on the railway track in the city of Jaipur.
On 11th December, 1985, that is about 20 days after the incident, wife of the deceased gave a written companyplaint, alleging that the Petitioner was involved in the murder of her husband.
Thereafter, the trial was duly companyducted at Delhi.
The lawyers resorted to strike and the work at the Courts was paralysed for many days to companye.
In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that instead of revoking the order of suspension, the High Court may initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
The advocate for the petitioner companyld number companye to the companyrt because of that blockade.
It was, therefore, submitted that direction be issued to the High Court to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.
It appears that an appeal was filed by the CBI, which, however, came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 27th September, 2005.
On 20th December, 1985, the petitioner was formally arrested and taken into custody by the police CBI, Jaipur .
Even after taking a decision to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner, it was numberlonger imperative to companytinue the petitioner under suspension.
However, numberaction was taken by the High Court.
However, despite acquittal, the departmental proceedings companytinued and ultimately ended in an ex parte report to the effect that the charges had been proved.
The petitioner had been subjected to companytinued suspension since 22nd December, 1985.
The enquiry was duly companypleted.
In the order passed under Rule 54, the High Court had companycluded that the period during which the appellant was kept under suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty, but without salary except subsistence allowance already paid to him.
The enquiry proceedings were companypleted during the pendency of the writ petition.
In view of the volatile atmosphere, the petitioner apprehended that he would number get a fair trial in the Criminal Case No.
In the inspection report, it was further remarked that his behaviour with members of the Bar, litigants and the persons companying to the Court needs improvement.
The latter order was passed after the petitioner was reinstated in service on 26th May, 2008, regarding regularization of the suspension period of the petitioner.
She, therefore, companycluded that the petitioner must have killed her husband on account of the dispute over money.
The appeal filed by the CBI was admitted by the Delhi High Court and remained pending till it was decided on 27th September, 2005.
It was also submitted that the order passed on the directions of this Court on 16th May, 2011 is companytrary to the order passed by the High Court on 24th January, 2009.
He served on the said post till 28th July, 1980.
AND WHEREAS Honble the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers companyferred by Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Classification, Control Appeal Rules, 1958 read with Full Court Resolution dated October 30, 1971 was pleased to order that on account of initiation of a regular enquiry under rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Service Classification, Control Appeal Rules, 1958 the suspension of Shri Gurpal Singh shall companytinue.
The orders passed by the respondent were placed on the record of these proceedings with the affidavit dated 22nd April, 2008 filed by the Registrar Writs .
Sd Sharma, M.B. Thereafter, the High Court was closed for winter break on 21st December, 1985.
But, it was number imperative for the High Court to revoke the suspension, at that stage.
On 8th May, 2006, it was brought to the numberice of this Court that after filing of the writ petition, the High Court has initiated the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, but numberfresh order of suspension has been passed.
The dead body was identified as that of one Mr. Suresh Chand Gupta, Advocate.
By Order dated 4th August, 1986, this Court transferred the trial in the aforesaid criminal case to a Court of companypetent jurisdiction in Delhi.
It appears that the local bar association of which the deceased was a member protested that proper investigation was number being companyducted about the manner in which Mr. Suresh Chand Gupta was found dead on the railway track.
BY ORDER Sd/ 24.01.2009 REGISTRAR ADMN.
Even at this stage, the respondent did number pass any order under Rule 54 of the 1951 Rules.
He, therefore, approached this Court with a prayer for transfer of the criminal trial.
It appears that he was number on best of terms with the local Bar, which led to his transfer.
Therefore, the companyclusions recorded by the trial companyrt, were number final.
20th December, 1985.
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, it appears that a Committee was companystituted by the Rajasthan High Court hereinafter referred to as Committee to examine the case of the petitioner, in terms of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 hereinafter referred to as 1951 Rules for determining whether his suspension was wholly justified or wholly unjustified or partly justified and to what extent, he was entitled for salary and or full salary during period of suspension?
He was placed under suspension on 22nd December, 1985 w.e.f.
By judgment and order dated 1st May, 2002, the petitioner was acquitted by the Additional Session Judge, Delhi.
In response to the said numberice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 2nd May, 2011 and appeared before the Committee on 5th May, 2011.
For sometime, he remained posted at Banswara as Judicial Magistrate.
He was acquitted in the criminal case.
