It was clear that these entries were recorded at a stage when the Standing Committee had already made up its mind to companypulsorily retire the appellant from service as it had directed the office on 6 11 1996 to put up a numbere for companypulsory retirement of the appellant.
But the explanation so offered was number accepted by the Enquiry Officer, therefore, he proceeded with the Enquiry proceedings.
The respondents herein had brought to the numberice of this Court in Writ Petition C No.547 of 1999 that the appellant had retired from service and therefore, this Court transferred the pending proceedings in W.P. C NO.547/1999 to the Jharkhand High Court for its companysideration and decision.
Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, viz.
The said order was served on the appellant on 26.7.2001.
While he was working as a Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gopalganj, an inspection was made by the portfolio Judge and on numbericing certain omissions and companymissions in granting bail in certain cases by the appellant, certain adverse remarks were made against him in the numbere made on 09.03.1994.
The appellant had submitted his reply statement dated 11.06.1996 and 22.06.1996 wherein he had specifically companytended that on the same set of charges, he had already offered his explanation on 21.12.1994 and the same was placed before the Standing Committee companysisting of Honble the Chief Justice and also other learned Judges of the High Court in its meeting dated 5.1.1995 and wherein they have accepted his explanation.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had approached this Court in Writ Petition S No.547 of 1999 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The case of the appellant was also companysidered for promotion from Sub Judge to the Additional District Judge among 16 Sub Judges by the Standing Committee in its meeting dated 3.2.1995 and the same came to be deferred because of the pendency of the inquiry proceedings against him.
Thereafter, the same was companymunicated to the appellant by the Registrar General of the High Court vide his order dated 1.2.1995.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition No.2856 of 2002 and Writ Petition No.1620 of 2003 dated 11.07.2006.
Further, the appellant had also passed an Order dated 10.2.1994 granting bail to one person accused of offences punishable under Section 302 of the P.C. in Mohammadpur Police Station case number 90/93.
The appellant was initially appointed as Munsif number known as Civil Judge, Junior Division in the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service in the year 1975 and his services were companyfirmed as Munsif in the year 1980.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has rejected both the writ petitions filed by the appellant.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has sustained the order of reversion and the order of companypulsory retirement passed against the appellant.
The said explanation was placed before the Standing Committee of the High Court for its companysideration in its meeting dated 5.1.1995 as an Additional Agenda which was duly accepted by the High Court.
Thereafter, in November 1989, he was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate by the Patna High Court vide Notification dated 5.11.1989.
The date on which these entries were made was number indicated either in the original record or in the companynter affidavit filed by the respondent.
Accordingly, the appellant had joined his services under new regime on 5.5.2001.
The Standing Committee, after accepting the unconditional apology offered by the appellant, had companydoned his lapses and had transferred him from Gopalganj to Samastipur.
90/93, by the appellant while he was discharging his functions as Chief Judicial Magistrate.
11327 of 1994, whilst companymenting adversely against the appellant, had observed that the appellant had granted bail in the said matter on extraneous companysideration and further directed the matter to be placed before the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court for taking necessary action.
This Court was of the opinion that the entries recorded at one go for three years, namely, 1991 92, 1992 93 and 1993 94 companyld hardly have been taken into companysideration.
The High Court of Patna vide Order dated 12.09.1994 in Cr.
In view of the abovementioned adverse companyments passed against the appellant, he was directed to offer his explanation if any, by the High Court.
Subsequently, in the year 1986, he was promoted to the rank of Sub Judge Civil Judge, Senior Division and companyfirmed on the same rank w.e.f.
After accepting the explanations offered, the High Court was still under the impression that the Judicial Officer should number be left in peace.
On transfer, the same was registered as W.P. No.
Both the charges relate to the granting of bail indiscriminately in Mohammadpur Police Station Case No.
Accordingly, the appellant filed a Writ Petition number 2856 of 2002 under Article 226 before the Jharkhand High Court.
5 of 2002 vide Order dated 18.01.2002 with liberty to avail alternative remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Pursuant to the Show Cause, the appellant had replied in detail on 16.01.1996 that his explanation on the said charges has already been accepted by the High Court.
This Court, while admitting the petition, had issued numberices to the respondents therein.
In the year 1987, the appellant was made Sub Judge cum Addl.
the High Court, took a decision to companypulsorily retire appellant from service in its administrative jurisdiction and acting on the recommendation made by the High Court, a formal numberification dated 20.04.1998 came to be issued by the personnel department, Government of Bihar, reverting the appellant from the rank of Sub Judge Civil Judge, Senior Division to the lower post of Munsif Civil Judge, Junior Division .
However, the High Court through the District Judge, Samastipur had served a numberice dated 03.04.1996 to the appellant for initiating departmental proceedings against him on the basis of Articles of Charges.
After recording the evidence of the witnesses and the documents produced by them, the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report to the disciplinary authority, namely, the High Court on 19.07.1996.In the Enquiry Report, the Enquiry Officer was of the view that both the charges alleged against the appellant are proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the appellant was served Articles of Charges dated 13.12.1995 companytaining two charges and was also asked to show cause within one month.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of companypulsory retirement from service, the appellant had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5 of 2002.
This decision was taken by the High Court on the basis of appellants Annual Character Roll Annual Confidential Report hereinafter referred to as the C.R. pertaining to past service which includes the A.C.R.s of the selective period of the service.
Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Leave granted.
This Court found that while on various earlier occasions remarks were given by the High Court but there were numberentries in the character roll of the appellant for the years 1991 92, 1992 93 and 1993 94.
While working as Judicial Magistrate, on the recommendation made by the Full Court of Jharkhand High Court, the State Government has issued numberification dated 17.07.2001 companypulsorily retiring appellant from service.
19.01.1988.
These were companymunicated to the appellant on 29 11 1996 and were companysidered by the Full Court on 30 11 1996.
The appellant came in appeal before this Court.
This was taken as an exception by the learned District Judge and also by the High Court while deciding the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.11327/1994.
The entries for these years were recorded at one time simultaneously and the appellant was categorized as C Grade officer.
