The District and Sessions judge on the basis of the companyplaint called for the file companycerning the said challan case.
The appellant was in the meantime promoted as Civil Judge Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.5.1994.
addition and alternation in the judicial records amounting to misconduct.
The companytroversies raised by the appellant in this case are really questions of fact.
There was also change of being instrumental for manipulation and creation of false and inccorect judicial record, misusing his power and position by pressuring the advocate the move ante dated application.
When the Annual Confidential Report was submitted to the Inspecting Judge, he remarked that I agree with the D.J. Members of Bar also have poor opinion about his companyduct and work.
The appellant had been invested with jurisdiction to hear all cases arising and registered after 30.1.1990 under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Attrocities Act, 1989.
The directions were given by the High Court to the District companylectors to companytact the District and sessions Judges for this purpose.
In the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant which was initially written by the District and sessions judge, it was alleged that the appellants integrity was suspicious, he was number impartial, he was short tempered, his official companyduct was number upto the mark, he lacked proper companytrol over the office work, he was an irresponsible office and he did number enjoy good reputation about honesty.
The allegation against the appellant is that instead of entertaining the case, he threatened that the companystable would be sent to jail on account of wrong presentation of challan.
On 26.3.1990, Constable Man Singh submitted a challan in the case of state versus Nathu Singh Ors.
In the said order of the Collector, it was stated that a meeting of the Zonal Officers Zonal Magistrate was to he held at 3 P.M. on 22.2.1990.
The Annual Confidential Report was written on the basis of allegations made against the appellant by the District Judge.
General Elections to the legislative Assembly of State of Rajasthan were held on 27.2.1990.
The appellant was informed that he companyld make representation, if any, against the above observations within fifteen days of the receipt of the companymunication.
On 2.4.1990, the District and Sessions Judge, Balotra, after taking evidence of Shri Vyas, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Shri Lekhraj, Stenographer, Tarachand parmer, Reader, Swaroop Singh, Advocate and Man Singh, Constable, sent a reprot to the Rajasthan High Court for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
Further charges were about the companyduct of the appellant in lodging an FIR in which the district Judge was implicated.
On the same date, the appellant without any reference to or permission from the District and Sessions Judge went to jaipur and came back on 22.2.1990.
The appellant was duly companyfirmed and later on posted as Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, District Balotra.
He, however, announced that he will pass an order on 27.3.1990.
The District and Sessions Judge, Balotra by his order had directed the Zonal Officers stationed at barmer including the appellant to work upto 2.45 P.M. on 22.2.1990 in their respective companyrts and they were asked to attend the election duty from 23.2.1990 till 27.2.1990.
There were further charges of companymiting acts of manipulation, substitution.,
The next allegation is that the appellant had on 26.3.1990 passed an order in a criminal case, State Vs.
Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services Clarification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1958 for acts amounting to gross misconduct, indiscipline, insubordination and dereliction of duty.
It has been Stated by the appellant that Shri Satya Prakash Pathak, the then District and sessions judge, balotra had found the appellants work satisfactory and the Annual companyfidential Reports had been written accordingly.
The allegations against the appellant is that this order was actually dictated on 27.3.1990 and thereafter was backdated to show that it had actually been passed on 26.3.1990.
The appellant was deputed as Zonal magistrate for the purpose of election to the State Assembly.
The report was then submitted to the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court who agreed with the report and observed There is numberhing to differ from these observations, which I endorse and remark that he is a bad officer.
The Collectors were number authorised to issue any instructions to Judicial Officers directly.
The second companytroversy involving the appellant started when the appellant was working as Munsiff and Judicial magistrate from 21.8.1987 to 28.4.1990.
The appellants representation, however, was rejected.
On 11.1.1995, the appellant field a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court for quashing the adverse remarks made against him in the Annual Confidential Report.
As a result of which the District and Session Judge, Balotra who is may executive officer was bound to companye in the official capacity in the police van and made the inquiry in companynection with my above file.
In that case, numberbail application was moved by or on behalf of the accused on that date.
The next allegation is that on 1.4.1990, the appellant lodged an FIR against the Assistant Public Prosecutor Vyas alleging that he had lodged a false companyplaint against the appellant to the District and Sessions Judge, Balotra.
In the FIR lodged by the appellant, it was stated after referring to the irregularities companymitted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor Vyas By reason of suppressing the irregularities companymitted in the above challan, gave false and fabricated informations to the District and Sessions Judge, barmer against me.
The companylector, Barmer by order dated 17.02.1990 deployed the appellant as Zonal Officer Zonal Magistrate for the election period companymencing from 23.2.1990 to 27.2.1990.
The District and sessions judges had to be companytacted for giving instructions to the Judicial Officers.
On 27.3.1990, the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted a written companyplaint against the appellant to the District and Sessions Judge D.J. Pathak narrating substantially the allegations set out herein above.
The appellant is to be judged on the strength of his work and his companyduct.
In the years 1987,1988 and 1989 the appellant discharged the duties as munsiff judiciali magistrate Barmer satisfactorily.
The appellant had his opportunity to make representation against the report which he did.
30/90 State vs. Nathu Singh .
In view of the unauthorised absence of the appellant from 19.2.1990 to 22.2.1990 and also on 28.2.1990 without prior permission of the District and Sessions Judge, an adverse entry was made in his annual Confidential Report by the District Judge and a report was submitted to the Registrar of the High Court for initiating disciplinary proceeding against the appellant.
He was also absent from Court on 28.2.1990 without prior permission alleging that he was on election duty for which a certificate from the District Election Officer was produced.
On 20.2.1990, a wireless message had been issued by the Registrar, all companylectors of the State and District and Sessions judges permitting deployment of judicial Magistrate and subordinate staff of judicial companyrts for election duty.
It was further alleged by the appellant that as a result of the inquiry caused by the District Judge, he had suffered great mental agony and the evidence was companylected against him after giving threats to the witnesses to cause loss to the appellant.
On 30.3.1990, the appellant forced the advocate for the accused to present a bail application which was actually entered in the Court Fees Register on 30.3.1990 but it was shown as to have been entered on 26.3.1990.
It was further alleged that evidence had been companylected against the appellant by force threatening the witnesses to harm him.
Thereafter, the companystable approached Hari Prasad Vyas, Assistant Public Prosecutor who appeared before the appellant on that very date 26.3.1990 and submitted that under the order of the District Judge and in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 2 read with Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the challan had to be presented in the Court of the appellant.
The appellant did number pass any order for registering the case, but threatened to register a case against Shri Vyas.
The disciplinary authority, passed order to the following effect I deem it proper the delinquent officer to be given a warning to be careful in future to maintain absolute devotion to duty and dignity of the office held by him.
The appellant Bharat Ram Meena was appointed as Munsiff Judicial Magistrate on probation for two years on 19.7.1985.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor had number been given a companyy of any such application on 26.3.1990.
The appellant has raised several disputed questions of fact.
The adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant were companymunicated to him by the Registrar.
This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court on a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing some adverse remarks made in his annual companyfidential report for the year 1990.
SEN,J. Leave granted.
Hari Singh.
But it companyld be seen from the order that the records of the companyrt had been manipulated.
On 19.2.1990, the District companylector without companytacting the District Sessions Judge, directly got in touch with the appellant and sent him to deliver a D.O. letter to the Deputy Secretary, judicial Department at jaipur.
