These civil appeals have been preferred by the Rajasthan High Court against the order dated 16.12.2014 by which a Division Bench of the said High Court dismissed a petition for review of its earlier order dated 09.11.2014 wherein the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Ved Priya Respondent No.
Taking numbere of the good servicerecord of the Respondent No.1 and the positive feedback given by his reporting authority and the endorsements by the Inspecting Judges, the Court viewed that there was numbermaterial on the basis of which the Full Court companyld resolve to dispense with the services of Respondent Page 3 No.
1 being aggrieved approached the Rajasthan High Court on its judicial side and filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the termination order, as well as reinstatement of his services.
1 was recruited into the Rajasthan Judicial Services on 16.07.2002 and appointed as Civil Judge Junior Division cumJudicial Page 1 Magistrate.
Certain allegations of misdemeanour and companyruption in discharge of judicial functions were received during the probation period against a few judicial officers including Respondents No.
1 , on the basis of which the Registrar Vigilance of the Rajasthan High Court called for the records and submitted a report dated 05.08.2004.
1 a former judicial officer and directed his reinstatement with companysequential benefits and seniority.
Page 2 Consequently and on the recommendation of High Court, State Government vide order dated 30.09.2004 dispensed with the services of Respondent No.1.
After due companysideration, it was recommended that the services of ninety officers be companyfirmed, the probationary period of one officer be extended and services of two judicial officers including Respondent No.
This report was put forth before the Administrative Committee of the High Court, along with a wealth of other material while it was undertaking the companyfirmation process of over ninety three probationary judges.
He was placed on probation for a period of two years w.e.f.
The Court accordingly quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement of Respondent No.1.
This report was placed before the Full Court of the High Court, which on 16.09.2004 companyfirmed the recommendations.
FACTS Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2020.03.18 161105 IST Reason Respondent No.
This fivejudge Committee sought to determine the suitability of the probationers as per terms and companyditions of the appointment by evaluating their integrity, knowledge, companyduct and behaviour.
The Full Courts reliance on unsubstantiated allegations and that too without affording an opportunity of hearing, was held to be impermissible which made the action punitive.
A review was later filed by the appellant, who companytended that the Division Bench failed to take numbere of the special report submitted by the Registrar Vigilance .
The evaluation of services rendered during the probationary period was made at the end of the first respondents tenure, along with 92 others.
In this process the Committee relied upon numerous materials, including reports submitted by their District Judges, Inspecting Judges, ACRs as well the aforementioned report submitted by the Registrar Vigilance .
1 petitioner, but also for at least ten other candidates.
02.08.2002, which was later extended by a further period of two months on 28.07.2004.
Vigilance reports were called number just for the Respondent No.
1 number be companyfirmed.
Respondent No.
