Honble SINGH, J. — The petitioner is a Judicial Officer. He has filed this petition with a prayer for quashing the order of punishment dated 11.12.1990, imposing a penalty of reduction in rank,i.e., reversion from the post of the Additional Sessions Judge to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (2). The petitioner, Who was appointed as a Munsif & judicial Magistrate, in due course was promoted to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge on 21st October,1987. (3). In that capacity, he passed judicial orders in a civil suit for redemption of a mortgage. After issuance of the summons, on 23.05.1988, the defendant had put in appearance on 24.05.1988. (4). He filed a written - statement, admitting the plaintiffs claim. 26th of May, 1988 was fixed in the case. In view of admission made by the defendant, there was no further controversy to be decided by the petitioner. No issue was framed, and the suit was decreed in terms of the defendants admission on the same day. (5). Thereafter, the plaintiff - decree - holder filed an application for execution on 30th May,1988. It was allowed. The following order was passed:— "30.5.88 - Advocate for the decree - holder present. Report of the Ahalmad (clerk) perused. The execution application be registered. Warrant of possession be issued. Details of property in the original decree sheet have been recorded on presentation of application in this regard. Therefore, counsel for decree - holder is directed to submit details of the property after obtaining necessary copies. Put up on 5.8.1988." (6). On 5.08.the execution case was ordered to be consigned to record on the basis of the report of the Special Amin that the execution of the decree has been carried out on 19th of June, 1988, in pursuance of the warrant and subsequent order passed by the Court. (7). The decree was passed with the consent of the parties. It has become final, as the defendant has neither filed any appeal nor revision against it till this date. (8). On 23rd of August,1988, after about two months of the execution of the decree, a complaint was filed by one - Chiranji Lal Haldia alleging irregularities in the conduct of the judicial proceedings. He requested the Vigilance Judge and the District & Sessions Judge to enquire into irregularities committed by the petitioner. (9). Admittedly, parties to the suit did not make any complaint. He requested the Vigilance Judge and the District & Sessions Judge to enquire into irregularities committed by the petitioner. (9). Admittedly, parties to the suit did not make any complaint. The complainant who was the original owner of the property had sold the same by registered sale - deed as far back as on 11th of January, 1965 to one Smt.Keshav Devi w/o. Jagannath Sharma, who subsequently sold the property to Kishan Lal by registered sale - deed. Kishan Lal, in turn, sold it to the Rajratan Financial corporation. All these sale - deeds were executed while the property was under mortgage with Smt. Ginni Devi. Chiranji Lal Haldia has no interest in the property now. Neither there was any cause to make a complaint against the petitioner nor he had a right to do so. (10). Though the complaint filed by Mr.Haldia was a frivolous one, yet on 10th of October,1988, the Chief Justice passed an order for disciplinary enquiry. A memo was issued, enclosing the charge - sheet and the statement of allegations. (11). The Disciplinary Authority examined Chiranjilal Haldia, but he did not depose anything against the petitioner. On the same day, Mr. N. K. Sethi, Advocate, was examined on behalf of the petitioner deposing that the petitioner had not committed any illegality or irregularity in deciding the uncontested suit. (12). The report of the enquiry officer was not supplied to the petitioner, in spite of the demand made by him. A notice dated 22nd of December, 1989 was served on him under the signature of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. He filed his reply. (13). The matter was considered by the Full Court and it accepted the petitioners version partially and decided to revert him back to the post of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The decision of the Full Court dated 18th of December, 1989 and the order imposing penalty are under-challenge. (14). After giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the view that while deciding the suit - Rajratan Financial Corporation V. Smt.Ginni Devi, within a week from the date of its institution, nothing wrong has been done by the petitioner. Since the case of the plaintiff has been admitted by the defendant, there was no need to frame any issue or direct the parties to lead evidence. Since the case of the plaintiff has been admitted by the defendant, there was no need to frame any issue or direct the parties to lead evidence. It was also not necessary to keep a dead suit pending un-necessarily. There could not have been any motive on the part of the Judicial Officer decreeing the suit expeditiously, as the defendant himself had filed his admission. (15). Since the defendant in the suit did not file any appeal or revision or any application for setting aside the decree on any ground, bonafide of the petitioner in deciding the suit cannot be doubted. (16). Accordingly, we are of the view that the order of punishment dated 11th of December,1990 suffers from error apparent on the face of record and the same is hereby quashed. (17). The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioner would be entitled for all the consequential benefits, to which he was entitled under law.