Judge, came up I found numberreference to the serious charges made against him in the petition by any one.
The petitioner had joined the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service as a District and Sessions Judge on 31st July, 1976.
There were some allegations against him and the petitioner, when he was posted as Registrar Vigilance had companyducted a preliminary enquiry as a result whereof he was awarded the penalty of censure.
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.
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 companyplainant, Shri Vijay Singh Poonia, President, Bar Association was examined.
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.
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.
From the perusal of those original records which had been placed before this Court at the time of hearing by the learned companynsel 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 companyy of PIL petition received by me some time back.
He further stated that the signatures on the companyplaint were number his and that he had made numbercomplaint against any judicial officer.
Registrar, Vigilance, Shri Behari Lal Gupta, in the matter of companyplaint filed against the Registrar, Shri R.C. Sood.
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 numberorganisation by the name of Rajasthan Judicial Liberation Front in Beni Park, Jaipur and that he had number heard the name of such an organisation.
The other person chosen to be summoned by the Committee was K.R. Jatav, also belonging to the judicial service.
As a result thereof K. Mahamwal was transferred.
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.
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 companyplaint against the petitioner was false and fabricated.
The enclosure to the letter of Justice Kokje was a cyclostyled companyy of the same PIL companyplaint of Vijay Singh which had been dealt with by the earlier Chief Justice vide order dated 31st January, 1994.
O.P.Sharmas, the last witness to the examined also belongs to the Rajasthan Higher Service against whom two companyplaints were received when the petitioner was posted as Registrar Vigilance .
The report submitted by Shri Gupta appears to be clear, companyent and categorical.
While allowing the writ petition it was held that it was difficult to appreciate how the Two Judge Committee companyld companye to the companyclusion 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 petitioner herein had companyducted 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.
R.C, Sood, Distt.
The Additional Registrar had also called for the companyments of the petitioner on the companyplaint.
By order dated 22nd November, 1994 in the judgment reported as R.C. Sood Vs.
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.
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.
There were serious companyplaints in relation to O.P. Sharmas integrity which were received by the High Court and one such companyplaint had been received by t he petitioner when he was working as Additional District Judge, Jaipur city which was forwarded by him to the Additional Registrar Vigilance which had resulted in a preliminary enquiry and a subsequent disciplinary proceedings against him.
This action was challenged by a Writ Petition C No, 680 of 1994 being fled by the petitioner in this Court.
Thus the companyplaint is fled and numberaction needs be taken against Shri Sood.
As it was addressed to the Chief Justice, I did number forward it then to you.
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.
Vide his letter dated 15th September, 1993, the Law Secretary forwarded that companyplaint to the Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court.
The allegations against the petitioner were generally vague or were such which stood explained from the record itself or were such which did number show that the petitioner had companymitted any irregularity, leave alone illegality.
Later another companyplaint 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.
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.
With effect from 1st July, 1989 to 1st February, 1994 the petitioner was posted as Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court.
By judgment dated 22nd November, 1994, in the case reported as R.C. Sood Vs.
After the petitioner had ceased to be the Registrar of the High Court the Chief Justice issued an office numbere relating to companyplaints against the judicial officers.
He, therefore, obviously must have borne grudge against the petitioner.
One of them had sought voluntary retirement after he had been superseded on account of poor service record and the other was companypulsorily retired by the High Court.
On 30th November, 1994 the Full Court took up the letter of 27th October, 1994 of Justice Kokje for discussion under Agenda Item No.
This numbere dated 12th May, 1994 which was addressed to Registrar Vigilance and Additional Registrar Vigilance read as follows A large number of companyplaints are being received against the Judicial Officers.
It was numbered that such a serious matter was never brought before the Full Court.
As the allegations are serious they deserve to be investigated thoroughly.
State of Rajasthan supra , this Court quashed the proposed disciplinary proceedings as well as order placing the petitioner under suspension.
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.
On 17th September, 1993 the Chief Justice directed the Additional Registrar Vigilance to submit an early report in the matter.
As a result of all this N.K. Mahamwal had been superseded and many of his juniors had been promoted.
On the receipt of the report the Chief Justice passed the following order on 31st January, 1994.
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 companyrts resolution dated 21st October, 1994.
Some of the Honble Judges have also received fresh companyplaints against Shri R.C. Sood making serious charges of companyruption.
I would therefore request you to kindly order an inquiry in the allegations made against Sh.
I have gone through the report submitted by the Addl.
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 J. has received such companyy and orders passed on.
He has dealt with all the charges that have been levelled in the companyplaint against Shri Sood.
It has been numbericed that after Preliminary Enquiry, most of the companyplaints, i.e., more than 95 are found false.
It is further seen that of all the affidavits in the form of companyplaints 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.
R.C. Sood in the petition especially when he has been proceeded against on certain other charges.
If the companyplainant does number file the requisite affidavit numberaction should be taken on that companyplaint.
After the judgment of this Court on 22nd November, 1994, whereby the writ petition of RC Sood was allowed with companyts, the storm against the petitioner gathered momentum.
Subsequently some more companyplaints 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.
However, when in the last full companyrt meeting the matter of Sh.
The story in this companynection 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 companyplaint, 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.
For example one of the main allegations against the petitioner was of his having companymitted irregularity in obtaining loan for companystructing a house.
It was also numbered that the Preliminary Enquiry against Shri R.C. Sood then posted as Registrar was companyducted by Additional Registrar Vig an officer subordinate to him.
The matter thus stood closed as far as the companyplaint of Vijay Singh against the petitioner was companycerned.
Rule nisi was issued by this Court limited to the question of legality of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and number on the question of his retirement on his attaining the age of 58 years.
Copy of the minutes of the said meeting pertaining to Item No.3 has been placed before us by the learned companynsel for the respondents and the same reads as under On being informed that the companyplaint of which a companyy was appended to the letter dated 27.10.94 of Honble 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.
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 companyruption were dropped.
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.
