R.C.SOODversusHIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

                              R.C.SOOD                                      A
                                   v.
                    HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

                         NOVEMBER21, 1994

              [J.S. VERMA AND K.S PARlPOORNAN, JJ.]                         B

    SERVICE LAW

    Rajashtan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules,
1958-Suspension Order-A member of Higher Judicial Service posted as
Registrar of High Court-Charge of issuing incorrect notification for        C
recruitment with ulterior purpose-No material to justify charge-Order of
suspension quashed-Constitution ofIndia 1950 Articles 14 and 16.

    The petitioner, a member of higher judicial service in the State of
Rajasthan and a senior District and Session Judge, was posted as D
Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court.

    Pursuant to a resolution passed by the High Court, a draft
advertisement was finalized for recruitment to the RHJS Cadre. The
age limit for the candidates was shown as the minimum of 35 years and
maximum of 45 years as on 1st Jan., 1995. However, the date with E
reference to which the eligibility of the candidates as to age had to be
examined was required to be mentioned as 1st Jan., 1994 instead of 1st
Jan., 1995 shown in the advertisement. Even after receipt of the
applications, this error remained undetected. Ultimately this mistake of
mentioning 1st Jan., 1995 instead of 1st Jan., 1994 as the date for F
reckoning the eligibility as to age was discovered by a Committee of
Judges. In the report it was stated that interpolations have been ~ade
changing 1994 as 1995 which must have been done with the definite
purpose to accommodate some candidate. On examining the record the
Committee held the petitioner, the then Registrar responsible for the
forgery committed in the record. The .petitioner was placed under G
suspension with immediate effect by the High Court in exercise of the
powers conferred by Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958. This writ petition has
been filed by the petitioner for quashing the suspension order and the
entire disciplinary proceedings on which it is based.                    H
                                  605
    606                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R

A       The petitioner in his rejoinder has expressly denied making any
    corrections in the draft advertisement. The High Court has taken the
    view that the said mistake in the date of i.e., 1st Jan., 1995 instead of 1st
    Jan., 1994 in the advertisement was the result of an interpolation or
    change in the date, made by the petitioner and that it amounted to
    gross misconduct in view of the consequence flowing there from which
B   enabled some undue benefit to some candidates.

          Allowing the writ petition, this Court

         HELD: 1.1 There is no material in the entire record, apart from
    the fact that the petitioner happened to be posted as Registrar af the
c   High Court at the time when the draft advertisement was finalized and
    sent for publication in the Gazette, to suggest that the change in the
    year from 1994 in the original draft to 1995 had been made by the
    petitioner and none else. It is obvious that the opportunity for making
    the change was available to many others in the registry. This obvious
    mistake was overlooked by the High Court which proceeded on the
D   erroneous assumption that this change must have been made only by
    the petitioner, and that too for ulterior purpose, without any material
    to justify that assumption. The High Court also ignored the fact that
    this mistake was not discovered by anyone in the registry including the
    petitioner's successor from Feb., 1994 till Sept., 1994 when it was
    noticed by the Judges Cc..mmittee, even though the last date for receipt
E   of applications was in March, 1994. (611 E,G, H, 612 A)

       . 1.2 There was no material to show if there was any candidate so
    benefited by this mistake, and if so, whether the petitioner was in any
    manner connected with him. No one in the High Court had considered
    this aspect. Part of the conclusion that the action of petitioner
F - amounted to 'forgery' is indeed astounding since forgery has a legal
    connotation amounting to an offense punishable under the Indian Penal
    Code. (612 C, D, G)
        1.3 On a careful examination of the entire record, this Court· has no
    doubt that the view taken· by the High Court and the consequent action
G   against the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted and violative of
    Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is unsustainable and hence
    struck down. (612 H)

          ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 680of1994.
H         (Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.)
                        R.C. SOOD v. H. C. OF RAJ.                      607

    H.N. Salve, Kailash Vasdev and S.K. Jain for the petitioner.               A
    Altaf Ahmed, Addi.Solicitor Genl. P.H. Parekh, S.Uday Sagar and Ms.
Sunita Sharma for the respondent.

    The Order of the Court was delivered:

     The Petitioner- R.C. Sood is a member of Higher Judicial Service in
                                                                               B
the State of Rajasthan and is a senior District and Sessions Judge. The
petitioner was posted as Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court from
l.7.1989 to l.2.1994; as the District and Sessions Judge at Jodhpur from
2.2.1994 to 4.6.1994; and as the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City,
Jaipur from 6.6.1994. By an order dated 22nd October, 1994 (Annexure C
'A') the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect by
the Rajasthan High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 13 of
the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules;
1958 as a consequence of the decision taken by the Full Court in its
meeting held on the 20th and 21st October, 1994. This writ petition has
been filed by the petitioner for quashing the suspension order and the entire D
disciplinary proceedings on which it is based.

     The qiaterial facts emerging from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf
of the High Court by Shri R.K. Jain, Additional Registrar (Writs) and the
original record produced before us may now be stated.
                                                                               E
    On 29th September, 1993 the High Court in its meeting resolved as
under:-

               "Having considered the report of the Promotion Committee,
               resolved that the 7 vacancies are determined for direct
               recruitment to the RHJS Cadre keeping reservation for F
               Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes as per rules."

    Pursuant to that Resolution, a draft advertisement was finalized in the
Registry of the High Court on 7.12.1993, both in Hindi and in English,
mentioning therein the conditions of eligibility of the candidates and the     G
same were published by a ·notification dated 4th January, 1994 in the
Gazette dated 18th January, 1994. According to the advertisement as
published, the age limit for the candidates was shown as the minimum of 35
years and maximum of 45 years on 1st January, 1995. Rule 14 of the Rajas-
than Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 in which provision is made
regarding the age limit of the candidates, reads as under:-                    H
    608                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R

A                  "'A candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have'
                    attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the
                    age of 45 years on the first day of January preceding the last
                    date fixed for submission of the application (rest not
                    relevant)."

B        The advertisement in Hindi and English mentioned the last qate for the
    receipt,,of the applications as 18.3 .1994 and 29 .3 .1994 respectively.

         It is therefore clear that the date with reference to which the eligibility
    of the candidates as to age had to be examined was required to be
    mentioned as "1st January, 1994" instead of "1st Janm:ry, 1995" shown in
c   the advertisement Even after receipt of the applications, this error remained
    undetected in the Registry till a Committee of two Judges, namely, Mrs.
    Justice Mohini Kapoor and Mr. Justice R.S. Verma was constituted to
    examine the same. The above mistake of mentioning '1st January, 1995'
    instead of' 1st January, 1994' as the date for reckoning the eligibility as to
    age was discovered by that Committee. The Committee in its report
D   (Annexure R-5) dated 8.9.1994 stated thus:-

                    "Thus, the Notification inviting the applications is not in
                    accordance with the Rules. We would suggest that a proper
                    Notification should be issued for inviting applications and
                    at this stage no useful purpose would be served by ·
E                   scrutinizing the applications already received. If further
                    exercise is done on this Notification, there is every chance
                    that the selection would be vitiated. This matter be placed
                    before Hon 'ble the Chief Justice for taking suitable action
                    against the officers who are responsible for the issue of
                    incorrect Notification and for taking decision for issue of
F                   fresh Notification."

         The learned Chief Justice then directed circulation of this report to all
    the Judges of the High Court.                                                      -,


         The record placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor
    General appearing for the High Court shows that two Judges, namely, Mr..
G
    Justice N.K. Jain and Mr. Justice B.R. Arora made a note to the effect that
    in addition to issue of a fresh notification as suggested by the Committee,
    actiOn should be also taken against the persons responsible for issuing the
    incorrect notification. In a Full Court meeting convened on 20th and 21st ..
    October, 1994 at Jaipur, the main seat of the High Court being at Jodhpur,
H   this matter was taken up at 2.00 p.m. on 20th October, 1994. The minutes
                        R.C. SOOD v. H. C. OF RAJ.                       609

of the meeting show that a r..esolution was passed by the Full Court on 20th A
October, 1994 as follows:-

               "Resolved that Justice M.P. Singh and Justice R.S. Kejriwal
               will examine the record of the notification issued on
               14.1.1994 for the direct recruitment in RHJS and will fix
               the responsibility of the officer/officers for putting wrong     B
               age eligibility date and would also suggest the action to be
               taken."

    On the next day, i.e. on 21st October, 1994, the Committee comprising
of Mr. Justice M.P. Singh and Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal submitted its report
on the basis of the record available to them, in which it was stated as C
under:-

               " ........ .Interpolations have been made changing '1994' as
               '1995 ', which must have been done with a definite purpose
               to accommodate some candidate, who probably was not
               fulfilling the requirements or to frustrate the appointment of   D.
               direct recruitees in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service.

                          xxx               xxx                xxx

               Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Jain and B.R. Arora, JJ, took a serious
               view of the matter and suggested for a thorough enquiry to       E
               be made in the matter and serious action may be taken
               against the person/persons found responsible for making
               changes in the record of the court which is a serious matter.'

    The Committee then stated its conclusion and recommendations, as
under:-
                                                                                F
               "This Committee has examined the record in detail and is of
               the tentative view that Shri R.C. Sood, the then Registrar, is
               responsible for the forgery committed in the record. A
               regular enquiry should be made in the matter in accordance
               with the rules.
                                                                                G
               The Committee is further of the view that Shri R.C. Sood
               ~y be placed under suspension in contemplation of
               enquiry."

    This report was considered in Full Court meeting on 21st October,
1994 at 2.00 p.m. and a Resolution was passed as under:-                        H
    610                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R

A                  "The Full Court has considered the report submitted by the
                   committee of Justice M.P. Singh and Justi!=e R.S. Kejriwal.

                   Resolved that departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the
                   Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and
                   Appeal) Rules, 1958 be initiated against Shri R.C. Sood,
B                  RHJS (District Judge, Jaipur City), the then Registrar and
                   pending enquiry he be placed under suspension.

       The Fun Court in the meeting held on 21.10.1994 has resolved as
    under:-

c                  Resolved that department enquiry under Rule 16 of the
                   Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and
                   Appeal' Rules, 1958 be initiated against Shri R.C Sood,
                   RHJS (District Judge, Jaipur City), the then Registrar and
                   pending enquiry he be placed under suspension."

         Acting on the said Resolution of the Full Court, the learned Chief
D
    Justice directed on 22. l 0.1994 that the petitioner be placed under
    suspension. It may be mentioned that at no stage was the petitioner even
    asked about this matter, even though he was available in Jaipur itself, being
    posted there as District Judge. This is how the impugned action has been
    taken.
E
        The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has expressly denied making
    any corrections in the draft advertisement placed before him and has stated
    as under:-

                   "After examining the draft notification which was to be
                   issued in Hindi, I made certain corrections in the opening
F
                   paragraph thereof. No corrections were made by me in the
                   dates of eligibility in the said notifications and/or in the
                   English' version of the said notifications. The notifications
                   duly corrected by me were forwarded to the office for
                   further action i.e. for being finally typed and issued.
G
                      xxx               xxx                        xxx

                   I say that the records as available to this Hon'ble Court
                   manifest ·that the changes in the dates have not been
                   initialed by any pen:on. I say that the corrections in the
H                  dates in the notifications have not been carried out by me. I
                          R.C. SOOD v. H. C. OF RAJ.                         6ll

                 crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to make further                  A
                 su~missions on the said corrections after inspecting the
                 original documents as only Xerox copies are available to
                 me. I say that the colour of the ink used in the said draft
                 notification (Annexure RI) for carrying out corrections is
                 different. I respectfully say that the allegations presently
                 made in the counter affidavit are a deliberate attempt to cast     B
                 serious aspersions on my character at a crucial stage of my
                 carreer a judicial officer."

      The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the High Court
·of Rajasthan has placed before us the entire relevant record which was also
 the only material available to the Committees of the High Court as well as         C
 to the Full Court itself, to act on, while taking the decision in the Full Court
 meeting. It is, therefore, undisputed that the validity and the legality of the
 impugned action taken by the High Court has to be judged on this basis
 alone.

     Obviously, the High Court has taken the view that the said mistake in D
the date of mentioning '1st January,1995' instead of' 1st Januar1, 1994' in
the advertisement was the result of an interpolation or change in the date
made by the petitioner - R.C. Sood; and that it amounted to gross
misconduct in view of the consequence flowing therefrom which enabled
some undue benefit to some candidates. In the first place, there is no
material in the entire record apart from the fact that the petitioner happened E
to be posted as Registrar of the High Court at the time when the draft
advertisement was finalized and sent for publication in the GazettP,, to
suggest that the change in the year from ' 1994' in the original draft to
'1995' had been made by the petitioner and none else. Learned Addi.
Solicitor General showed to us the original draft, and, in all fairness, also F
pointed out that the ink in which the year '1995' was written in place of
' 1994' was different from the ink which had been used by the petitioner
elsewhere in the same draft. There was no initial at the place of the change
of the year to indicate who had made that change, much less to suggest that
the change had been made by the petitioner.It is obvious that the
opportunity for making the change, assuming it was of the kind visualized G
by the High Court, was available to many others in the Registry including
the persons who had typed the draft and handled the same after it had been
finalized by the petitioner as the Registrar on 7.12.1993. This obvious fact
was overlooked by the High Court which proceeded on the erroneous
assumption that this change must have been made only by the petitioner,
and that too for an ulterior purpose, without any material to justify that H
    612                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R

A   assumption. The High Court also ignored the fact that this mistake was not
    discovered by anyone in the Registry including the petitioner's successor
    from February, 1994 till September, 1994 when it was notice by the Judges
    Committee, even though the last date for receipt of applications was in
    March 1994. It is this fallacy which led the High Court from one error to
    another, till the end.
B
          It is obvious that this mistake could not benefit any one who had
    already attained the age of 45 years on l. l .1994 which was the upper age
    limit, since that person would undoubtedly grow order in age on l.l.1995.
    The only benefit could be any one who did not satisfy the requirement of
    lower age limit of 35 years on 1.1.1994 and would attain that age on
c    1.1.1995. The logical exercise to perform was, therefore to see if there was
    any candidate so benefited, and, if so, whether the petitioner was in any
    manner connected with him. It is obvious that no one in the High Court had
    even considered this aspect, in as much as when we put this question, the
    learned Addi. Solicitor General on instructions told us that the record did
D   not contain even a list of all the candidates with reference to their age to
    reveal this aspect. The learned Addi. Solicitor General asked the officer of
    the High Court present to assist him to prepare such a list from the record
    which shows that there may be some candidates who attained the age of 35
    years between 1.1.1994 and 1.1.1995. But then there is absolutely nothing
    to indicate that any of them in any manner connected with the petitioner,
E   much less that the petitioner has any interest in them. It is difficult to
    appreciate how the Committee comprising of Mr. Justice M.P. Singh and
    Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal could reach the conclusion quoted earlier, more
    particularly as under :-                                     ·

                    "This Committee has examined the record in detail and is of
F                   the tentative view that Shri R.C. Sood, the then Registrar, is
                    responsible for the forgery committed in the record."

        This part of the conclusion that the action amounted to "forgery" is
    indeed astounding since forgery has a legal connotation amounting to an
    offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
G
         On a careful examination of the entire record placed before us by the
    learned Addi. Solicitor General, we have no doubt that the view taken by
    the High Court and the consequent action against the petitioner, to say the
    least, is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
H   the Constitution. It is unsustainable and must be struck down.
                        R.C. SOOD v. H. C. OF RAJ.                       613

     This case leaves us very sad. Entrustment of the 'control' of the A
subordinate judiciary to the High Courts by enactment of the relevant
provisions in the Constitution of India, particula.rly Article 235 therein is
for the purpose of ensuring their independence and protection from
executive interference. At a time when fairness and non-arbitrariness are
the essential requirement of every administrative State action, it is more so
for any Administrative Act of the Judges. It is necessary that members of B
the subordinate judiciary get no occasion to think otherwise. We are afraid,
this incident appears to shake this faith. We do hope it is an inadvertent
exception.

     At the request of the learned Additional Solicitor General, after the
matter was heard yesterday, we gave him time till today to explore the C
possibility of the High Court appreciating the correct position and revoking
its decision. However, the learned Addi. Solicitor General has informed us
today that the High Court on a reconsideration of the matter has only
reiterated its earlier stand. We are, therefore, left with no option, except to
decide this matter on merits and to say herein what we consider our painful
duty in these circumstances.                                                    D
     Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned entire
disciplinary proceedings initiated by the High Court against the petitioner,
together with the Full Court Resolutions dated 20th and 21st October, 1994
as well as the order dated 22nd October, 1994 placing the petitioner under
suspension are quashed. We also make it clear that all the consequential ac- E
tions, if any, taken by the High Court nursuant to their decision, which we
have quashed, shall also stand annulled and be totally ineffective. The High
Court is directed to take all the necessary consequential steps pursuant to,
and in accordance with this decision, forthwith. In the circumstances of the
case, we also direct the respondent - High Court of Rajasthan to pay Rs.
 10,000 as costs to the petitioner.                                          F
A.G.                                                       Petition allowed.