{"id":268468,"date":"1998-05-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-05-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998"},"modified":"2018-12-14T14:45:34","modified_gmt":"2018-12-14T09:15:34","slug":"r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998","title":{"rendered":"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At … on 13 May, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At … on 13 May, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Kirpal<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha, B.N. Kirpal<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nR.C. SOOD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/05\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nA.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nKIRPAL,J.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioner who was a member of the Rajasthan Higher
\nJudicial Service,  has by  this petition under Article 32<\/a> of
\nthe  Constitution   of\tIndia,\t assailed  the\tdisciplinary
\nproceedings which  have been  initiated against him pursuant
\nto the\tresolution dated  5th May, 1995 of the Full Court of
\nthe Rajasthan High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioner had joined the Rajasthan Higher Judicial
\nService as a District and Sessions Judge on 31st July, 1976.
\nHe had\tbeen posted  and had  discharged duties\t at  various
\nplaces and  in different  capacities including\tthat  as  an
\nAdditional Registrar,  Rajasthan High  Court  and  Registrar
\n(Vigilance), Rajasthan\tHigh Court.  With  effect  from\t 1st
\nJuly, 1989  to 1st  February, 1994 the petitioner was posted
\nas Registrar  of the  Rajasthan High  Court.  After  he\t was
\nposted as  District  and  Sessions  Judge,  Jodhpur  on\t 2nd
\nFebruary, 1994\tand then  was transferred  as  District\t and
\nSessions Judge,\t Jaipur with  effect from 6th June, 1994 but
\nbefore his  superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years,
\ndepartmental enquiries\twere initiated\tagainst him  on\t two
\noccasions. The first departmental enquiry was initiated by a
\nresolution of Full Court dated 21st October, 1994, which was
\nchallenged by  the petitioner  by filling a writ petition in
\nthis Court.  By order  dated  22nd  November,  1994  in\t the
\njudgment reported  as R.C. Sood Vs. High Court of Rajasthan,
\n1994  (Suppl)  3  SCC  711,  this  Court  quashed  the\tsaid
\ndisciplinary proceedings  and the Full Court’s resolution in
\nrespect thereto.  The second  disciplinary proceeding, which
\nhas  been   challenged\tin  this  writ\tpetition,  has\tbeen
\ninitiated by  the High Court vide its resolution dated 5\/6th
\nJanuary, 1995. Rule nisi was issued by this Court limited to
\nthe question  of legality  of the initiation of disciplinary
\nproceedings against  the petitioner  and not on the question
\nof his retirement on his attaining the age of 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
     There are\ttwo sets  of facts leading to the passing of
\nthe aforesaid  two resolutions\tby the High Court whereby it
\nsought to  initiate  departmental  proceedings\tagainst\t the
\npetitioner. Even  though the  resolution dated 21st October,
\n1994, when  the first departmental proceeding was initiated,
\nhas been  quashed by  this Court  vide judgment\t dated\t22nd
\nNovember,  1994,   in  order,  however,\t to  deal  with\t the
\ncontentions arising  in this  petition, it  is necessary  to
\nfirst refer  to the  set of facts pertaining to the issuance
\nof the\tfirst disciplinary  proceedings as  that  has  every
\nmaterial bearing in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
     First Disciplinary Proceedings:\n<\/p>\n
     When the petitioner was working as the Registrar of the
\nRajasthan High\tCourt the Full Court on 29th September, 1993
\ndecided to  invite applications\t to fill up the vacancies in
\nthe Rajasthan  Higher Judicial\tService\t by  way  of  direct
\nrecruitment. A\tdraft advertisement  was  finalised  in\t the
\nRegistry of  the Rajasthan  High Court\tboth in Hindi and in
\nEnglish, mentioning therein the conditions of eligibility of
\nthe candidates.\t According to  the advertisement  which\t was
\npublished the  age limit  of the candidates was shown as the
\nminimum\t of 35 years and maximum of 45 years on 1st January,
\n1995. As  the last  date for  receipt of the application was
\n18th March,  1994 and  20th March, 1994 the relevant cut off
\ndate should  have been\t1st January,  1994. There  being  an
\nerror in  the publication of the advertisement in mentioning
\nthe relevant  date as  1st  January,  1995  instead  of\t 1st
\nJanuary, 1994,\ta Committee of two Judges was required to go
\ninto the  matter. The Committee in its report suggested that
\nfresh applications  be called  for and\tthe matter should be
\nplaced before  the Chief  Justice for taking suitable action
\nagainst the  officer who  was responsible  for\tissuing\t the
\nincorrect notification. The Chief Justice directed that this
\nreport\tshould\t be  put   up  before\tthe  Full  Court  by
\ncirculation.  On   20th\t October,   1994  the\tFull   Court
\nconstituted a committee of two other Judges to look into the
\nrecord leading\tto the\tissuance of  the notification.\tThis
\ncommittee submitted  a report  dated 21st  October, 1994 and
\nnoted that  in\tthe  draft  for\t publication  the  date\t was
\ncorrectly mentioned  as 1st  January, 1994  but\t before\t the
\nmatter was sent to press for publication interpolations were
\nmade changing  the year from `1994′ to `1995′. The committee
\nfurther observed  that it  was their tentative view that the
\npetitioner was responsible for the “forgery committed in the
\nrecord”. It  recommended that  a regular  enquiry be made in
\naccordance with\t the rules and that the petitioner should be
\nplaced under suspension in contemplation of the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
     On 21st October, 1994 the date of the report of the two
\nJudge Committee,  the Full  Court met at 2 p.m. and resolved
\nthat  departmental   inquiry  be   initiated   against\t the
\npetitioner and\the should  be placed  under suspension. This
\naction was challenged by a Writ Petition (C) No, 680 of 1994
\nbeing fled  by the  petitioner in  this Court.\tBy  judgment
\ndated 22nd November, 1994, in the case reported as R.C. Sood
\nVs. State  of Rajasthan\t (supra),  this\t Court\tquashed\t the
\nproposed disciplinary  proceedings as  well as order placing
\nthe petitioner\tunder suspension.  While allowing  the\twrit
\npetition it was held that it was difficult to appreciate how
\nthe Two\t Judge Committee  could come  to the conclusion that
\nthere was a forgery in the record and\/or that any person had
\nbenefited from\tthe said  error or  that the  petitioner was
\nresponsible for the same.\n<\/p>\n
     The aforesaid  decision and direction of this Court did
\nnot result  in an  end to  the petitioner’s troubles. On the
\ncontrary the  facts, to\t which we will currently refer, show
\nhow the\t further prospects of the petitioner in the judicial
\ncareer\twere  successfully  thwarted  and  the\tdisciplinary
\nproceedings have  been sought to be foisted on him, which is
\nthe subject matter of challenge in these proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     Impugned Disciplinary Proceedings :\n<\/p>\n
     We will now refer, in some detail, to the second set of
\nfacts culminating  in the passing of the impugned resolution
\nof the\tFull Court  on 5\/6th  January, 1995  instituting   a
\nregular departmental  enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan
\nCivil Service  (Classification, Control\t and  Appeal)  Rules
\n1958. The  story in  this connection  starts from September,
\n1993 when  one Vijay Singh describing himself as Chairman of
\nthe Rajasthan  Judicial Liberation  Front,  Bar\t Room,\tBeni
\nPark, Jaipur  circulated a  complaint, though described as a
\n`PIL –\ta petition  under Article  226<\/a> of the Constitution’,
\naddressed to  the Judges  of the  Rajasthan High  Court\t and
\nother functionaries.  It appears that a copy of the same was
\nalso sent  to the  State’s Law\tSecretary. Vide\t his  letter
\ndated 15th September, 1993, the Law Secretary forwarded that
\ncomplaint to  the Registrar  of the Rajasthan High Court. On
\n17th  September,   1993\t the   Chief  Justice  directed\t the
\nAdditional Registrar  (Vigilance) to  submit an early report
\nin the\tmatter.\t On  15th  September,  1993  the  Additional
\nRegistrar (Vigilance)  recorded statement of one Vijay Singh
\nPoonia, Advocate,  President of\t the  District\tCourt,\tBeni
\nPark, Jaipur  who stated  that there  was no organisation by
\nthe name  of Rajasthan\tJudicial Liberation  Front  in\tBeni
\nPark, Jaipur  and that\the had not heard the name of such an
\norganisation. He  further stated  that the signatures on the
\ncomplaint were\tnot his\t and that  he had  made no complaint
\nagainst any  judicial officer.\tThe Additional Registrar had
\nalso called  for the  comments\tof  the\t petitioner  on\t the
\ncomplaint. After  receiving the\t reply Additional  Registrar
\n(Vigilance) recorded  further statements  of  other  persons
\nincluding members  of the  Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service
\nand thereupon  submitted his report dated 11th January, 1994
\nto the\tChief Justice  stating therein\tthat  the  complaint
\nagainst the  petitioner was  false and\tfabricated.  On\t the
\nreceipt of the report the Chief Justice passed the following
\norder on 31st January, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
     “I\t  have gone  through the  report
\n     submitted by  the Addl.  Registrar,
\n     Vigilance, Shri  Behari Lal  Gupta,
\n     in the  matter of\tcomplaint  filed
\n     against the  Registrar,  Shri  R.C.
\n     Sood. The\treport submitted by Shri
\n     Gupta appears  to be  clear, cogent
\n     and categorical.  He has dealt with
\n     all  the  charges\tthat  have  been
\n     levelled in  the complaint\t against
\n     Shri Sood.\t All the  witnesses have
\n     testified\tto   the  good\tconduct,
\n     integrity\tand  rightness\tof  Shri
\n     Sood. There  is no gain of truth in
\n     the  allegations  levelled\t against
\n     Shri Sood.\t It  appears  that  this
\n     complaint\tis  filed  against  Shri
\n     Sood out  of malice.  I put it down
\n     as the  handiwork of  some mischief
\n     mongers. Thus the complaint is fled
\n     and  no   action  needs   be  taken
\n     against Shri Sood.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The matter thus stood closed as far as the complaint of
\nVijay Singh against the petitioner was concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     After the\tpetitioner had ceased to be the Registrar of
\nthe High  Court the  Chief Justice  issued  an\toffice\tnote
\nrelating to  complaints against\t the judicial officers. This
\nnote dated  12th May,  1994 which was addressed to Registrar
\n(Vigilance) and\t Additional Registrar  (Vigilance)  read  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
     “A large  number of  complaints are
\n     being received against the Judicial
\n     Officers. It  has been noticed that
\n     after Preliminary\tEnquiry, most of
\n     the complaints, i.e., more than 95%
\n     are  found\t false.\t Sometime  P.E’s
\n     consume a\tlot of time and Judicial
\n     Officers are  put to embarrassment.
\n     Therefore,\t before\t initiating  the
\n     P.E. against  any Judicial\t Officer
\n     complainant may be asked to support
\n     his complaint with an affidavit.
\n     If the  complainant does  not  file
\n     the requisite  affidavit no  action
\n     should be taken on that complaint.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The trouble for the petitioner revived after he had, on
\n24th October,  1994, filed the earlier writ petition in this
\nCourt  challenging   his  suspension   and   initiation\t  of
\ndisciplinary proceedings  by the  court’s  resolution  dated
\n21st October,  1994. From  the\tperusal\t of  those  original
\nrecords which  had been placed before this Court at the time
\nof hearing  by the learned counsel for the respondents it is
\nseen that a hand written letter dated 27th October, 1994 was
\nwritten to  the Chief Justice then in officer by Mr. Justice
\nKokje which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “I\t am  enclosing\ta  copy\t of  PIL
\n     petition received\tby me  some time
\n     back. As  it was  addressed to  the
\n     Chief Justice, I did not forward it
\n     then to  you. However,  when in the
\n     last full\tcourt meeting the matter
\n     of Sh.  R.C,  Sood,  Distt.  Judge,
\n     came up I found no reference to the
\n     serious charges made against him in
\n     the petition  by any  one.\t As  the
\n     allegations   are\t  serious   they
\n     deserve\tto    be    investigated
\n     thoroughly.   I   would   therefore
\n     request  you  to  kindly  order  an
\n     inquiry  in  the  allegations  made
\n     against  Sh.   R.C.  Sood\t in  the
\n     petition  especially  when\t he  has
\n     been proceeded  against on\t certain
\n     other charges.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On this  letter itself  the then  Chief Justice on that
\nvery day,  i.e.\t 27th  October,\t 1994,\tmade  the  following
\nendorsement :\n<\/p>\n
     “Put up this matter in next F.C. In
\n     the meantime  find out  if previous
\n     C.J. has  received\t such  copy  and
\n     orders passed on.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The enclosure  to the  letter of  Justice Kokje  was  a
\ncyclostyled copy  of the  same PIL\/complaint  of Vijay Singh
\nwhich had  been dealt with by the earlier Chief Justice vide
\norder dated  31st January,  1994. After the judgment of this
\nCourt on  22nd November,  1994, whereby the writ petition of
\nRC Sood\t was allowed  with  costs,  the\t storm\tagainst\t the
\npetitioner gathered  momentum. On  30th November,  1994\t the
\nFull Court  took up  the letter\t of 27th  October,  1994  of
\nJustice Kokje  for discussion  under Agenda Item No. 3. Copy
\nof the\tminutes of  the said meeting pertaining to Item No.3
\nhas been  placed before\t us by\tthe learned  counsel for the
\nrespondents and the same reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “On   being   informed   that   the
\n     complaint\tof   which  a  copy  was
\n     appended  to   the\t  letter   dated
\n     27.10.94 of  Hon’ble  Justice  Shri
\n     Kokje had\tbeen received earlier by
\n     the  High\t Court\t a   Preliminary
\n     Enquiry into  the allegations  made
\n     therein had  also\tbeen  held,  the
\n     record of\tPreliminary Enquiry  was
\n     called  and  perused  by  the  Full
\n     Court. It\twas noted  that\t such  a
\n     serious matter  was  never\t brought
\n     before the\t Full Court. It was also
\n     noted that\t the Preliminary Enquiry
\n     against Shri  R.C. Sood then posted
\n     as\t Registrar   was  conducted   by
\n     Additional\t  Registrar   (Vig)   an
\n     officer   subordinate    to    him.
\n     Proceedings  of   the   Preliminary
\n     Enquiry  show  that  statements  of
\n     persons who  were alleged\tto  have
\n     benefitted Shri  Sood were recorded
\n     and in  place of  Shri Vijay  Singh
\n     the complainant,  Shri Vijay  Singh
\n     Poonia, President,\t Bar Association
\n     was   examined.\tStatements    of
\n     selected  judicial\t  officers   and
\n     lawyers certifying\t Shri Sood to be
\n     a person  of  integrity  were  also
\n     recorded  and  relying  on\t such  a
\n     material\tserious\t   charges    of
\n     corruption were  dropped.\tSome  of
\n     the  Hon’ble   Judges   have   also
\n     received fresh  complaints\t against
\n     Shri  R.C.\t  Sood\tmaking\t serious
\n     charges of\t corruption. Considering
\n     all  these\t circumstances\tand  the
\n     serious nature of the charges it is
\n     resolved as follows :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “RESOLVED that  the order passed by
\n     the then  Hon’ble Chief  Justice on
\n     the report\t of Preliminary\t Enquiry
\n     against Shri  R.C.Sood conducted by
\n     the Additional  Registrar (Vig)  be
\n     and is hereby revoked.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     FURTHER RESOLVED  that  Preliminary
\n     Enquiry  in   the\tmatter\tbe  made
\n     afresh by\ta Committee  of\t Hon’ble
\n     Judge  consisting\tof  Hon’ble  Mr.
\n     Justice B.R. Arora, Hon’ble Justice
\n     Shri V.S. Kokje and Hon’ble Justice
\n     Shri B.J.\tSethana.  The  Committee
\n     shall  also  eqnuire  into\t various
\n     complaints\t forwarded  to\tthem  by
\n     Hon’ble Judges  against  Shri  R.C.
\n     Sood. It  is hoped\t that the report
\n     of the  Committee\twill  be  placed
\n     before  Full  Court  on  or  before
\n     6.1.1995.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     FURTHER  RESOLVED\tthat  facts  and
\n     circumstances leading to a pendency
\n     of\t the   Preliminary  Enquiry   be
\n     communicated to  His Excellency the
\n     President of  India and Hon’ble the
\n     Chief Justice  of India  in view of
\n     the  fact\t that  looking\t to  the
\n     seniority of  Shri\t R.C.  Sood  his
\n     name  is\tlikely\t to   be   under
\n     consideration for\televation  as  a
\n     Judge of  the High\t Court.\t Hon’ble
\n     the Chief\tJustice be and is hereby
\n     requested to do so.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The said  Three Judge Committee submitted its report on
\n4th  January,\t1995.  After   formulating  the\t points\t for
\nconsideration and  discussing the material placed before it,
\nit came to the following conclusion :\n<\/p>\n
     “The Committee,  though had a short
\n     time at its disposal, has been able
\n     to\t collect  only\ta  part\t of  the
\n     materials, but  on the basis of the
\n     part  of\tthe  materials\ttoo,  as
\n     discussed above, we are of the view
\n     that prima facie Shri R.C. Sood has
\n     falled   to    maintain\tabsolute
\n     integrity and  to maintain devotion
\n     to the  duty  and\tdignity\t of  his
\n     office. The  Committee is, also, of
\n     the opinion  that a regular enquiry
\n     under  rule  16  of  the  Rajasthan
\n     Civil   Services\t(Classification,
\n     Control and  Appeal)  Rules,  1958,
\n     may  be   held  against  Shri  R.C.
\n     Sood.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Submissions :<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Two main  contentions  were  urged\t on  behalf  of\t the
\npetitioner. Firstly,  it was contended that with the passing
\nof the\torder dated 31st January, 1994 by Chief Justice K.C.
\nAggarwal the  complaint of  Vijay Sing\tstood disposed\toff.
\nThis complaint,\t it was\t submitted, could not br reopened by
\nthe Full  Court or  the then  Chief Justice  specially\twhen
\nthere were  no attenuating  circumstances by  way  of  fresh
\nevidence or material which would warrant a fresh look in the
\nmatter – and there was no such material.\n<\/p>\n
     Secondly it  was submitted\t that the  initiation of the
\nimpugned disciplinary  proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet
\nlevelling charges which were state and on materials gathered
\nas an  after thought  was an  action tainted with malice and
\nsuch proceedings  were liable  to be  quashed as  being mala
\nfide and malicious in law.\n<\/p>\n
     First submission :\n<\/p>\n
     The complaint  of Vijay Singh had been enquired into by
\nthe Additional\tRegistrar (Vigilance),\ton being directed to
\ndo so  by the  Chief Justice.  During the  course of enquiry
\nwitnesses were\texamined and  report was  received whereupon
\nthe Chief  Justice on  21st January,  1994 passed  the above
\nmentioned order.  Subsequently on  12th May, 1994, the Chief
\nJustice had directed that no complaint should be entertained
\nwhich is not supported by an affidavit. In the resolution of
\n30th November,\t1994 reference\tis  made  to  a\t preliminary
\nenquiry which  had been\t made earlier  and it was noted that
\nsuch a serious matter had never been brought before the Full
\nCourt. It  was also  stated that  statements of\t persons who
\nwere alleged  to have  been benefited  by the petitioner had
\nbeen recorded and in place of the complainant Vijay Singh it
\nis one\tVijay Singh  Poonia, President\tBar Association, who
\nwas examined.  It is  because of  this resolution  that\t the
\nearlier order  of the  Chief Justice  and the  report of the
\npreliminary enquiry were revoked.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  which arises for consideration is whether
\nthe Full Court could or was justified in revoking a decision
\nwhich was  taken by  the then Chief Justice on 31st January,
\n1994. Chapter  III  of\tthe  Rules  of\tthe  High  Court  of
\nJudicature for\tRajasthan, 1952,  deals with  the conduct of
\nthe administrative business of the court. For the purpose of
\nthis case  the relevant\t rules are  Rule 14, 15 and 32 which
\nare as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     14.     Administrative\tbusiness
\n     relating\t to\tcontrol\t    over
\n     subordinate    courts     and    to
\n     superintendance  over   courts  and
\n     tribunals :  –  All  administrative
\n     business in  the Court  relating to
\n     the control over subordinate courts
\n     vested in\tthe Court  under Article
\n     235<\/a>   of\t the   Constitution   or
\n     otherwise\t    and\t     to\t     the
\n     superintendance over the courts and
\n     tribunals vested in the Court under
\n     Article 227<\/a>  of the Constitution or
\n     otherwise shall  be disposed  of as
\n     provided hereinafter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15. Matters  on  which  all  Judges
\n     shall  be\t consulted  –\tOn   the
\n     following matters all the Judges of
\n     the  Court\t  shall\t be   consulted,
\n     namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) proposals  as to legislation or
\n     changes in the law ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) proposals  as to  changes in or
\n     the issue of new Rules of Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) proposals  as to  changes in or
\n     the issue\tof  new\t rules\tfor  the
\n     guidance of subordinate courts;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  appointment,\t promotion   and
\n     seniority of judicial officers;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)   withholding\t of   promotion,
\n     supersession   or\t  reduction   of
\n     judicial officer;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f) removal  or  dismissal\t of  any
\n     judicial officer;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (g)   compulsory\t retirement   of
\n     Judicial officer  otherwise than by
\n     way of punishment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (h) important  questions of  policy
\n     or those  affecting the  powers and
\n     status of the court laid before the
\n     Court by Chief Justice or any other
\n     Judge;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  matters   connected  with  the
\n     Supreme Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (j) annual administration report;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (k)   matters    upon   which   the
\n     Government desires\t the opinion  of
\n     the  Court,   if  such   matter  is
\n     considered fit  to b  e laid before
\n     the Court by the Chief Justice; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (l)  any  matter  which  the  Chief
\n     Justice   or   the\t  Administrative
\n     Committee,\t as   constituted  under
\n     Rule 16,  may consider  fit  to  be
\n     laid before them for consideration.
\n     3.2   Effect of any irregularity in
\n\t  or  omission\t to  follow  the
\n\t  procedure laid  down\tin  this
\n\t  Chapter –  (1) No irregularity
\n\t  in, or omission to follow, the
\n\t  procedure laid  down\tin  thin
\n\t  Chapter   shall   affect   the
\n\t  validity of  any order  passed
\n\t  or anything  done under  these
\n\t  Rules .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) For the removal of doubt, it is
\n     hereby    mentioned     that    all
\n     administrative work  disposed of by
\n     the     Chief\tJustice,     the
\n     Administrative Judge  or Judges  to
\n     whom the  work has been assigned by
\n     the  Chief\t  Justice  for\tdisposal
\n     shall be  deemed to  be disposed of
\n     by the Court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A perusal\tof these  rules show  that matters where all
\nthe Judges are required to be consulted, namely, those which
\nhave been  brought to the Full Court, are enumerated in Rule\n<\/p>\n
15. With  regard to  the judicial officers it is clauses (c)
\nto (g)\twhich are relevant. It is only if a judicial officer
\nis to  be removed  or dismissed\t that the  matter has  to be
\nbrought before the Full Court. Under clause (i) if the Chief
\nJustice desires\t then any  matter can  be listed before t he
\nFull Court.  Every complaint  received\tagainst\t a  judicial
\nofficer is  not required to be brought before the Full Court
\nunless and until the question of removal or dismissal of the
\njudicial officer  arises. It  was competent  for  the  Chief
\nJustice especially  in view of the provision of sub rule (2)
\nof Rule\t 32,  while  dealing  with  the\t complaint  received
\nagainst the petitioner, to decide that no action thereon was
\ncalled for.  No illegality  or impropriety  was,  therefore,
\ncommitted by  the Chief\t Justice when  he  decided  on\t31st
\nJanuary, 1994 that the complaint of Vijay Singh did not call
\nfor any\t disciplinary action  against the  petitioner. It is
\nonly if\t the Chief Justice was of the view that disciplinary
\naction may  be called  for t  hat, by virtue of clauses (e),\n<\/p>\n
(f) and\t (g) the  matter would\thave required  to be brought
\nbefore the  Full Court.\t That apart, the Chief Justice could
\nunder clause (I) have brought the complaint to the notice of
\nthe Full  Court, but he chose not to do so. This was because
\nhe was\tapparently satisfied  about the\t hollowness  of\t the
\ncomplaint on  the basis\t of the\t preliminary report  of\t the
\nAdditional Registrar (Vigilance) which was received by him.\n<\/p>\n
     We express\t no opinion on the question whether for good
\nand sufficient\treasons the Full Court can ever over-rule or
\nrecall an  earlier decision  of the  Chief Justice.  But the
\nfact that  the preliminary  report was\tnot brought  to\t the
\nnotice of  the Full  Court, which  the Chief Justice was not
\nbound do,  could not be reason for recalling the order dated
\n31st January, 1994 of the then Chief Justice.\n<\/p>\n
     Another error which was committed was that the Court in
\nits  resolution\t  of  30th     November,   1994\t took\tinto
\nconsideration the  complaint of\t Vijay Singh even though the
\nsame was  not supported\t by an\taffidavit. The Chief Justice
\nhad by\this order  dated 12th  May, 1994,  decided  that  no
\ncomplaint against  a judicial  officer should be entertained
\nunless it  is supported\t by an affidavit. Though this was an
\nadministrative order  it was  passed by the Chief Justice in
\nexercise of the powers conferred on him by Rule 32(2) of the
\nsaid Rules.  There was\tno reasons  to why this order should
\nhave  been   ignored  and   the\t complaint  of\tVijay  Singh
\nentertained  even   though  it\t was  not  supported  by  an
\naffidavit. The resolution of 30th November, 1994 also states
\nthat some  of the  judges  have\t received  fresh  complaints
\nagainst the petitioner making serious charges of corruption.
\nNo particulars\tare indicated  as to  which complaints\twere
\nreceived by  which judge.  It is evident from the wording of
\nthese minutes that what those complaints were, were not even
\nknown to  all the members of the Full Court when they passed
\nthe resolution\ton 30th\t November, 1994. We have, therefore,
\nno doubt  that when  a valid  decision had been taken by the
\nthen Chief  Justice on\t31st January  1994 exonerating\tt he
\npetitioner there  was no  valid reason\tin law\tfor the Full
\nCourt to revoke that decision.\n<\/p>\n
Second Submission:\n<\/p>\n
     During the\t course of  hearing  Mr.  Aruneshwar  Gupta,
\nlearned counsel\t for the  respondent produced  in court\t the
\noriginal file  containing the  complaints received  and\t the
\nproceedings of\tthe aforesaid Three Judge Committee. We have
\ncarefully  examined  the  said\tfile  in  order\t to  satisfy
\nourselves whether  the Committee  was fair  and judicious in
\nthe task  which was  entrusted to  it.\tWithout\t going\tinto
\nminute details, the file reveals following facts which speak
\nfor themselves.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  letter dated  37th\t October,  1994,  the  Chief
\nJustice made  a note  dated 27th October, 1994 calling for a
\nreport. But  the first\tnote of the registry relating to the
\nletter dated  27th October,  1994 of  Justice Kokje is dated
\n9th November,  1994. The  suggestion made  in this  note was
\nthat the  file be  sent to vigilance cell because that dealt
\nwith the  complaints received against the judicial officers.
\nThe next note also dated 9th November, 1994 of the vigilance
\ncell states  that its  report is placed along with the note.
\nThis is followed by a note also of 9th November, 1994 of the
\nChief Justice  stating that  “put up  in next  Full  Court”.
\nCuriously enough  the report  mentioned in  the note  of the
\nvigilance cell is not on the record filed in court though it
\npurported to be a part of vigilance section’s note. There is
\nthen an\t undated note  which appears  to be the minutes of a
\nmeeting of the Three Judge Committee which is in the file in
\nwhich it  is,  inter alia, stated that initially it has been
\ndecided\t to  call  seven  witnesses  for  their\t examination
\nrelating to  various charges  against  the  petitioner.\t The
\nCommittee also\tdecided to  call for  the valuation  of\t the
\nhouse belonging to the petitioner from the Valuation Cell of
\nthe Income-tax\tDepartment as  well as\tthe Chief  Engineer,
\nPWD, Rajasthan,\t Jaipur. These minutes are signed by all the
\nthree judges  of the committee. There is then a confidential
\nnote dated  9th\t December,  1994  signed  by  Justice  Arora
\ndirecting the  registry to  summon four\t witnesses mentioned
\ntherein for  19th December,  1994 and  three other witnesses
\nnamed therein  for 20th\t December, 1994 . The file discloses
\nthat as on 30th November, 1994 there were written complaints
\nmade by\t seven persons against the petitioner apart from the
\ncomplaint of  19th September, 1993 of Vijay Singh. The other
\ncomplaints are\teither dated  26th November,  1994  or\t30th
\nNovember, 1994\tor are undated. Even though there were seven
\ncomplainants only  three of them were summoned as witnesses.
\nThere is no indication as to why four other persons were not
\nsummoned. Of  these seven  witnesses who  were summoned only
\nthree, including two of the complainants, were examined. Two
\nother persons  who were\t examined were\tthose in  respect of
\nwhom  no  summons  were\t ordered  to  be  issued.  Thus\t the
\nCommittee examined  five witnesses out of which M.R. Mitruka
\nand Vijay Singh were the two complainants, K.R. Jatav is the
\nonly other  witness who\t was summoned  vide order  dated 9th
\nDecember, 1994.\t N.K. Mahamwal and O.P. Sharma were examined
\neven though  they were\tneither the  complainants as on 30th
\nNovember, 1994\tnor had\t been summoned\tvide order dated 9th
\nDecember, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  adverting\t to  these   five  witnesses  it  is
\nimportant to  note that\t the file  contains  copies  of\t the
\nsummons\t dated\t9th  December,\t1994  issued  to  the  seven
\nwitnesses but,\tcuriously enough,  not even a single copy of
\nthe summons  bears an  endorsement of  the  receipt  by\t any
\nwitness. The  file also\t does not contain any other document
\nshowing that  the witnesses  to whom summons had been issued
\nwere served  at the addresses contained in the summons. This
\nfact is\t important to note because it  has been contended by
\nMr. Kailash\tVasudev, learned counsel for the petitioner,
\nwhich contention  we will  consider later,  that Vijay Singh
\nwho is described in the complaint and is stated to have been
\nexamined by  the Committee was not a lawyer and Vijay Singh,
\nto whom\t summons were alleged to have been issued at the Bar
\nroom address,  was a  non existent  person. The\t file of the
\nCommittee also\tincludes written  complaints in\t the form of
\naffidavits of five other persons. Two of them are dated 31st
\nDecember, 1994,\t one 1st  January, 1995 and another is dated
\n2nd January, 1995. When the Full Court had on 30th November,
\n1994 stated  that the Committee was to go into the complaint
\nof Vijay  Singh and  any other\tcomplaint  received  by\t the
\nJudges, it  is not  understandable as  to why  any complaint
\nreceived after\t30th November,\t1994 was  entertained by the
\nCommittee. Another  important feature  to note is that apart
\nfrom  Vijay   Singh’s  complaint   of  1993  all  the  other
\ncomplaints are either undated or received after this Court’s
\njudgment of 22nd November, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
     Another notable  feature  of  the\tEnquiry\t Committee’s
\nreport\tis   that  though   a  Three   Judge  Committee\t was
\nconstituted the witnesses to whom summons were issued on 9th
\nDecember, 1994\tappear to  have been  selected by  the local
\njudge Justice Arora. The examination of witnesses took place
\non  20th  and  21st  December,\t1994  at  Jodhpur  and\t29th
\nDecember, 1994\tat Jaipur.  What is,  however, revealed from
\nthe file  is that  these witnesses were examined only by two
\nof the\tThree Judges and Justice Sethna did not take part in
\nthe examination\t of the witnesses and was not present at the
\ntime of\t the examination even though he has signed the final
\nreport.\n<\/p>\n
     The only  complaint  before  the  Full  Court  on\t30th
\nNovember, 1994\twas that of Vijay Singh. In the affidavit in
\nrejoinder the  petitioner has averred that the complaint was
\nstated to  have\t been  made  by\t Vijay\tSingh  of  Rajasthan
\nJudicial Liberation  Front. The\t person who  was examined by
\nthe Committee was Vijay Singh son of Madan Singh resident of
\n179, Kalidas Marg, Beni Park, Jaipur. It is contended by the
\npetitioner that no person by the name of Vijay Singh resides
\nat the\tsaid address  and there\t is  no\t such  front  called
\nRajasthan Judicial  Liberation Front.  In  support  of\tthis
\naverment reliance is placed on a report of the SHO, PS, Beni
\nPark, Jaipur, company of which has been filed in Court along
\nwith its  English translation,\twhich inter alia states that
\non verification\t it has been found that there is no plot no.
\n179, Kalidas  Marg, Beni  Park, Jaipur.\t This report further
\nstates that plot no. 179, Sindhi Colony, Jaipur, is owned by
\none Tulsi Ram and plot no, 179 Indira\tColony\t by   Shambu
\nDayal and in both these plots Vijay Singh son of Madan Singh
\ndid not\t reside. The  petitioner has  also filed certificate
\nfrom Rajasthan\tHigh Court Bar Association, Jaipur, District
\nAdvocates Bar  Association, Beni  Park, Jaipur\tand the\t Bar
\nAssociation District  Court dated  31st October,  1995, 27th
\nOctober, 1995  and 17th\t October, 1995,\t respectively and in
\neach of these certificates it has been stated that no person
\nby the\tname of\t Vijay Singh  son of Madan Singh resident of
\n179, Kalidas  Marg, Beni  Park, Jaipur, is a member of their
\nassociation. Lastly  an\t affidavit  of\tVijay  Singh  Sharma
\n(Brahmin by  caste) son\t of K.M.  Sharma, Advocate  has been
\nfiled in  which he  has stated\tthat he\t has not  filed\t any
\ncomplaint against the petitioner and that to the best of his
\nknowledge no  other person by the name of Vijay Singh Sharma
\nwas practising\tin the\tDistrict Court\tor at  Jaipur.\tEven
\nthough this  rejoinder affidavit  was filed in this Court on
\n14th November, 1995, none of the averments contained therein
\nin relation  to Vijay  Singh  or  other\t persons  who  spoke
\nagainst the petitioner have been rebutted by the respondents
\neither by  filing a  sur rejoinder  or even  at the  time of
\narguments. This\t would clearly show that Vijay Singh who was
\nexamined by  the Committee was certainly not an advocate and
\nwas in\tall probabilities  an impostor.\t Who that person was
\nwho was examined by the Committee remains unexplained.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that the  Committee was  only looking for a
\nperson who  was ready  to depose against the petitioner even
\nif  he\t be  an\t  imposter.  This   conclusion\tis   further
\nstrengthened by\t the selection\tof four other persons by the
\nCommittee whose evidence is on record. Of these M.R. Mitruka
\nhad filed a complaint dated 30th November, 1994 supported by
\nan affidavit  dated 1st\t December, 1994\t which means that on
\nthe day\t when the  Full Court  passed the resolution on 30th
\nNovember, 1994\tthe complaint along with the affidavit could
\nnot have  been on the record. This witness who had chosen to
\nfile an\t affidavit against  the petitioner  after  the\tFull
\nCourt resolution  on 30th November, 1994 was an ex member of
\nthe Rajasthan Judicial Service who had been removed from the
\nservice in  1982. The  petitioner  herein  had\tconducted  a
\npreliminary enquiry  in the  charges which  had been  framed
\nagainst\t Mitruka   and\tit  is\tafter  the  receipt  of\t the
\npreliminary  report   of   the\t petitioner   that   regular
\ndepartmental  proceedings   against   him   were   initiated
\nculminating in\tawarding  the  punishment  of  removal\tfrom
\nservice by  the Full  Court of the Rajasthan High Court. The
\nother person chosen to be summoned by the Committee was K.R.
\nJatav, also  belonging to  the judicial\t service. There were
\nsome allegations against him and the petitioner, when he was
\nposted as  Registrar (Vigilance) had conducted a preliminary
\nenquiry as  a result  whereof he  was awarded the penalty of
\ncensure. Subsequently  some more  complaints  were  received
\nagainst K.R.  Jatav and on further enquiry by the petitioner
\ndisciplinary  action  was  taken  against  him\tand  he\t was
\nsuperseded on  the basis  of this  report and  bad ACRs.  He
\nobviously was inimical towards the petitioner. N.K. Mahamwal
\nis also\t a member  of the Rajasthan Judicial Service against
\nwhom complaints were made by the members of the Bar alleging
\nmisbehaviour towards  advocates\t which\thas  resulted  in  a
\npreliminary enquiry  being conducted  by the petitioner when
\nhe was\tposted as Registrar (Vigilance). As a result thereof
\nN.K.  Mahamwal\twas  transferred.  Later  another  complaint
\nagainst him was received for misbehaviour with the advocates
\nand litigants  and again  on the  report of the petitioner a
\nwarning was  administered to  Mahamwal. At the time when the
\npetitioner was\tposted as  District Judge,  Udaipur, he\t had
\nalso reported  against the bad behaviour of Mahamwal who was
\nposted as Munsif Magistrate under his charge. As a result of
\nall this  N.K. Mahamwal\t had been superseded and many of his
\njuniors had  been promoted.  He, therefore,  obviously\tmust
\nhave borne  grudge against the petitioner. O.P.Sharma’s, the
\nlast witness  to the  examined also belongs to the Rajasthan
\nHigher Service\tagainst whom  two complaints  were  received
\nwhen the  petitioner was  posted as  Registrar\t(Vigilance).
\nThere were  serious complaints\tin relation to O.P. Sharma’s
\nintegrity which were received by the High Court and one such
\ncomplaint had  been received  by t he petitioner when he was
\nworking as  Additional District Judge, Jaipur city which was
\nforwarded by  him to  the Additional  Registrar\t (Vigilance)
\nwhich had resulted in a preliminary enquiry and a subsequent
\ndisciplinary proceedings  against him.\tIt is  further\tseen
\nthat of\t all the  affidavits in the form of complaints which
\nwere received by the Committee after 30th November 1994, two
\nof them were from those persons who were formerly members of
\nthe Rajasthan Judicial Service who had been removed. One  of
\nthem had  sought voluntary  retirement\tafter  he  had\tbeen
\nsuperseded on  account of  poor service record and the other
\nwas compulsorily  retired  by  the  High  Court.  The  third
\naffidavit  dated  2nd  January,\t 1995  was  of\tyet  another
\njudicial officer  against whom\tdisciplinary proceedings had
\nbeen initiated\tand an FIR had been lodged in respect of the
\nalleged murder of the husband.\n<\/p>\n
     Based on  such type of evidence the Committee submitted
\nits report  on 4th  January, 1995  signed by  all the  three
\nJudges. It is but natural that highest standard of integrity
\nis expected  of and  is required  to be\t maintained by every
\njudicial officer.  It is  with this in view that even though
\nthe impugned  initiation of  proceedings is being alleged to
\nbe for\tmala fide  reasons that\t it is proper to see whether
\nthe allegations\t against the  petitioner were  such which in
\nany way\t warranted the holding of a disciplinary proceeding.
\nWe  have,  therefore,  carefully  seen\tthe  report  of\t the
\nCommittee and the complaints against the petitioner in order
\nto satisfy  ourselves whether  there was any cogent material
\nwhich warranted\t initiation of\tdisciplinary proceedings. We
\ndo not\tfind, after  such  examination,\t that  any  material
\nexisted which  could justify  the initiation of the impugned
\naction.\t The   allegations  against   the  petitioner\twere
\ngenerally vague\t or were such which stood explained from the
\nrecord itself  or were\tsuch which  did not  show  that\t the
\npetitioner  had\t committed  any\t irregularity,\tleave  alone
\nillegality. For\t example one of the main allegations against
\nthe petitioner\twas of\this having committed irregularity in
\nobtaining loan for constructing a house. Apart from the fact
\nthat this loan was sanctioned by the then Chief Justice, the
\npetitioner has\twith the  assistance of the loan constructed
\nthe house  and is  living there\t and the loan amount already
\nstands returned.  In such circumstances for the Committee to
\ncome to\t a  conclusion\tthat  the  disciplinary\t proceedings
\nshould be initiated was clearly unwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
     Apart from\t the non-judicious manner in which the Three
\nJudge  Committee  conducted  the  enquiry  the\tsequence  of
\nevents, which bears repetition, shows that being piqued with
\nthis  Court’s\tjudgment  quashing  the\t first\tdepartmental
\nenquiry the  High Court, with a few functionaries playing an
\nactive role, left no stone unturned with a view to victimise
\nthe  petitioner.  On  21st  October,  1994  the\t High  Court
\nsuspended the  petitioner and  decided\tto  hold  the  first
\ndepartmental enquiry.  On 24th October, 1994 this suspension
\nwas challenged\tby way\tof a  writ petition in this Court in
\nwhich this  Court on  7th November,  1994 issued  show cause
\nnotice to the High Court. Suddenly we find on the High Court
\nrecord Justice\tKokje’s\t letter\t dated\t27th  October,\t1994
\nforwarding to  the then\t Chief Justice\tthe old complaint of
\nVijay Singh.  The Chief Justice makes an endorsement on this
\nletter on  the same  date –  thereby showing  the  sense  of
\nurgency. First\toffice note is written only on 9th November,
\n1994, after  issuance of  notice by  this Court\t in the writ
\npetition filed\tby the\tpetitioner. The fact that it is only
\non 30th\t November, 1994, after the decision of this Court on
\n22nd November, 1994, that the Full Court fixed up the matter
\nlends credence to the petitioner’s submission that the dates
\nwhich appear on record may not be real. This is more so when
\nwe find that none of the documents in the form of complaints
\nallegedly received  by the Judges bear any endorsement as to
\nthe date  of receipt of the same. To crown it all the second
\nround started  on a  complaint of Vijay Singh stated to have
\nbeen received  by Justice  Kokje on  or before 27th October,
\n1994. This  complaint had been circulated in September, 1993
\namongst all the then Judges of the High Court and in respect
\nof which  order was passed by the them Chief Justice and the
\nmatter\twas  closed  on\t 31st  January,\t 1994.\tRespondents’
\ncounsel could  give no\texplanation as\tto how Justice Kokje
\ngot this  complaint against  the petitioner some time before
\n27th October  1994 when\t he was transferred to the Rajasthan
\nHigh Court  only on  28th April,  1994.\t At  that  time\t the
\npetitioner had\tceased to be the Registrar of the High Court
\nwith effect  from   1st February, 1994. It is obvious that a
\ncopy of\t this complaint\t was handed over to Justice Kokje by
\nsome one   who\twas interested in harming the petitioner and
\nthereupon the  second round of action against the petitioner
\ncommenced with\tJustice Kokje  being made one of the members
\nof the Three Judge Committee.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  no manner\t of doubt  that there was a complete
\nlack of\t bona fides  on the  part of  the High Court when it
\ndecided on  5th\t January,  1995\t to  institute\tdisciplinary
\nproceedings against the petitioner. On this ground alone the
\npetitioner is entitled to succeed.\n<\/p>\n
Conclusions :\n<\/p>\n
     Normally enquiry  committees are  set up  in  order  to
\nascertain correct  facts. Here, however, we have a situation
\nwhere a\t committee consisting  of   a local  judge  and\t two
\ntransferred judges  was set  up with the local judge sitting
\nalone and  collecting a\t menagerie of  witnesses who  had  a
\ngrudge against\tthe petitioner\tand were thus sure to depose
\nagainst him.  Some of these witnesses were those who had not
\nsent any  complaint against  the petitioner  prior  to\t30th
\nNovember, 1994\tand it\tis only the local judge who, wanting
\nto gather  statements against  the  petitioner,\t could\thave
\nknown whom  to approach\t and call  for evidence.  Of the two
\ntransferred judges  who were  members of  the committee, one
\nnever took part in any proceeding when evidence was recorded
\nbetween 20th  February and  2nd January,  1995. Yet he signs
\nthe report  dated 4th  January, 1995.  The other  transferee
\njudge is  the person  who set  the  ball  rolling  with\t his
\nconjuring up  Vijay Singh’s  complaint which  had originally
\nbeen  circulated   long\t before\t  the  judge’s\ttransfer  to
\nRajasthan. The respondent’s counsel was unable to explain as
\nto how\tthis  complaint\t was  conveniently  placed  in\tthis
\njudge’s hand.  It is  evident that  there was  a  deliberate
\ndesign to  bring to  a premature  end the judicial career of
\nthe petitioner, whose name, at that time, was being actively
\nconsidered for\televation  as  High  Court  Judge.  This  is
\napparent from  the fact\t that in  the resolutions dated 30th
\nNovember, 1994\tand 5th January, 1995 it was resolved by the
\nFull Court that the President of India and the Chief Justice
\nof India  should  be  informed\tabout  the  holding  of\t the
\ndepartmental enquiry  against the  petitioner. Acting on the
\nbasis of  the Committee’s  blased report  the Full Court, we
\nare sad\t to note, continued in similar vein and proceeded to
\nnail the  petitioner  by  taking  a  decision  which  lacked
\nobjectivity. Apparently\t stung by  the judgment\t dated\t22nd
\nNovember, 1994\tof this\t Court it  retaliated by launching a
\nfresh set  of charges  against the petitioner clearly with a
\nview to\t ruin his judicial career. We have no doubt that the
\naction taken  by the  court was not bona fide and amounts to
\nvictimisation.\tThis   is  certainly  not  expected  from  a
\njudicial forum,\t least of  all\tthe  High  Court,  which  is
\nexpected to  discharge its  administrative duties  as fairly
\nand objectively\t as it is required to discharge its judicial
\nfunctions.\n<\/p>\n
     The proceedings  of the  meeting of  the Full Court are
\nnormally supposed  to be confidential. How is it then that a
\nnumber of complaints were received against the petitioner at
\nabout that  time, i.e.,\t 30th November,\t 1994. Some  of\t the
\ncomplaints on  the file\t of the\t Three Judge  Committee\t are
\nundated and  it is not known when they were received. On two
\ncomplaints the\tdate is 26th November, 1994, but they do not
\nhave supporting\t affidavits. It is, therefore, possible that
\nthese complaints  may have  been ante-dated  specially\twhen
\nnone of\t these complaints bear an endorsement signifying the
\ndate of\t their receipt.\t The complaint\tof Mitruka  is dated
\n30th November,\t1994 but  the affidavit\t supporting is dated
\n1st December, 1994. The fact that an enquiry was going to be
\nconducted against the petitioner was not publicly advertised
\nwhich could  have resulted in complaints being filed, how is
\nit then\t that after  the judgment  of  this  Court  on\t22nd
\nNovember, 1994\tand about the time the resolution dated 30th
\nNovember, 1994\twas passed,  unsolicited complaints  started
\ncoming in.  We have  no doubt that all these complaints were
\nprocured solely\t with a\t view to  show that  a part from the
\noriginal  complaint   of  Vijay\t  Singh\t there\t were  other
\ncomplaints against  the\t petitioner  which  represented\t new
\nmaterial justifying  a fresh enquiry. These complaints, some
\nof them\t being made  by discredited persons containing vague
\nand general  allegations could not, in our view, be regarded
\nas fresh  material which  required disciplinary\t proceedings
\nbeing initiated.  The said  complaints\tdid  not  merit\t any
\nserious considerations\tand reference  to them\tby the\tHigh
\nCourt was  uncalled for. In this connection we reiterate the
\nsentiments  expressed  by  this\t Court\twhile  allowing\t the
\npetitioner’s writ  petitions on the earlier occasion when at
\npage 716 of the report it was observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “This  case  leaves  us  very  sad.
\n     Entrustment of the `control’ of the
\n     subordinate judiciary  to the  High
\n     Courts by enactment of the relevant
\n     provisions in  the Constitution  of
\n     India,  particularly   Article  235<\/a>
\n     therein  is   for\tthe  purpose  of
\n     ensuring  their   independence  and
\n     protection\t     from      executive
\n     interference.  At\t a   time   when
\n     fairness and  non-arbitrariness are
\n     the essential requirements of every
\n     administrative State  action, it is
\n     more so  for any administrative act
\n     of the Judges. It is necessary that
\n     members\tof    the    subordinate
\n     judiciary get  no occasion to think
\n     otherwise.\t We   are  afraid,  this
\n     incident  appears\t to  shake  this
\n     faith.  We\t  do  hope   it\t is   an
\n     inadvertent exception.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We are  sorry to  note that the said hope stands belied
\nand notwithstanding  the  aforesaid  observations  the\tHigh
\nCourt acted  in the  manner which  can\tonly  be  termed  as
\narbitrary and unwarranted, to say the least.\n<\/p>\n
     For  the\taforesaid  reasons  this  writ\tpetition  is
\nallowed. The  entire disciplinary  proceedings initiated  by
\nthe High Court against the petitioner together with the Full
\nCourt’s resolutions  dated 30th November, 1994; 5th January,
\n1995 and  6th January,\t1995 are quashed. We also direct the
\nrespondents – High Court of Rajasthan to pay Rs. 20,000\/- as
\ncosts to the petitioner.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At … on 13 May, 1998 Author: Kirpal Bench: A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha, B.N. Kirpal PETITIONER: R.C. SOOD Vs. RESPONDENT: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/05\/1998 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nR.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At ... on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At ... on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-14T09:15:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At … on 13 May, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-14T09:15:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998\"},\"wordCount\":7283,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998\",\"name\":\"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At ... on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-14T09:15:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At … on 13 May, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At ... on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At ... on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-14T09:15:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At … on 13 May, 1998","datePublished":"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-14T09:15:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998"},"wordCount":7283,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998","name":"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At ... on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-14T09:15:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-sood-vs-high-court-of-judicature-at-on-13-may-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.C. Sood vs High Court Of Judicature At … on 13 May, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268468","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268468\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}