Headnote
AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed
The petitioner, an Additional District and Sessions Judge posted at Sangaria, challenged the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon him by order dated 18th September 2015 passed by the Governor of Rajasthan. The disciplinary proceedings arose out of allegations that the petitioner had entertained a second bail petition and granted bail to an accused facing a murder trial, despite knowledge that the High Court had dismissed an earlier bail application filed by the same accused and that a transfer petition in respect of the sessions case was pending before the High Court.
Two charges were framed against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry: first, that he granted bail to the accused within three weeks of dismissal of the High Court bail application while a transfer petition was pending; and second, that he malafidely and for extraneous reasons granted bail despite no substantial change in circumstances. The Inquiry Judge held the first charge proved but found the second charge of malafide and extraneous considerations unsubstantiated. Notwithstanding, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement.
The petitioner raised multiple grounds challenging the disciplinary proceedings, including the alleged impropriety of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) behind his back, non-compliance with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, and the disproportionality of the punishment, particularly given that the charge of extraneous considerations was not proved. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur considered these contentions in its reserved judgment pronounced on 14th November 2024.
Catchwords:
compulsory retirement
judicial officer
departmental inquiry
bail granted by sessions judge
second bail application
High Court bail dismissed
transfer petition pending
gross misconduct
judicial indiscipline
extraneous considerations
charge not proved
preliminary inquiry
Rajasthan Civil Services Rules 1958
proportionality of punishment
disciplinary proceedings against judicial officer
© LegalFirms.in — Headnote is proprietary. Raw judgment text is in the public domain
per Section 52(1)(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Full Judgment Text
[Cites 34, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Singh vs State And Ors on 14 November, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:35400-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1971/2017
Amar Singh son of Bagtawar Singh Ji, aged about 58 years
resident of Ward No.1, Near Power House, Gajsinghpur District
Shri Ganganagar
---Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Personnel
(Ka 3/Jach) Department, Government of Rajasthan
Secretariat Jaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan through Deputy Sec
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
From ₹167/month.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.