ORDER : Govind Mathur, J. 1. The petitioner, a member of Rajasthan Judicial Service, has preferred this petition for writ to challenge the order dated 4.3.2014, communicating the petitioner a resolution undertaken by the Full Court in its meeting dated 15.2.2014. The resolution referred above reads as under:- "Explanation of the delinquent in response to letter dated 9.10.2013 was considered by the Full Court. His explanation as regards finding on charge No. 4 is not acceptable because even if the particulars of the accused released on bail, number of vehicles released on supurdginama, date of journey of complaint by any of the accused were not produced, statement of Shri Bhopal Singh (DEW-2), the then President of the Bar Association, in the enquiry and his admission that he was signatory to the complaint made by the Advocates and also his statement recorded during preliminary enquiry constitute sufficient evidence. The charge is quite serious and this witness has categorically stated that the delinquent was posted at Dantaramgarh and that whenever he granted bail to accused lodged at Sikar, their relatives had to arrange vehicle and the delinquent used to travel from Dantaramgarh to Sikar in it. Though the explanation on charge No. 4, in view of gravity of charge vis-à-vis the office the judicial officer held, deserves to be rejected, however, his explanation to charge No. 6 is accepted. Accordingly, the delinquent officer is exonerated of the charge No. 6. The Full Court, on a consideration of the materials on record, has thus resolved to impose penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect for charge No. 4, which according to it, stands proved against the officer." 2. By the same order the resolution undertaken by the Full Court was executed by imposing a penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. 3. Succinctly, facts of the case are that while working as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, the petitioner was served with a memorandum under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') and was called upon to explain the allegations of misconduct. A detailed explanation was submitted by the petitioner. A detailed explanation was submitted by the petitioner. Without having any outcome of the memorandum dated 20.9.2005, a memorandum dated 7.7.2011, as per Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon the petitioner. By the memorandum aforesaid the petitioner was directed to explain the allegations of misconduct referred in the annexed statement of charges. Suffice to mention that the charges under the memorandum dated 7.7.2011 were similar to the charges communicated under the memorandum dated 20.9.2005. By a communication dated 23.11.2011 the petitioner communicated that the charges being similar to the proceedings initiated under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 deserve to be dropped. In alternative, he also made a request to treat the explanation earlier given by him as the explanation pertaining to the charges communicated under memorandum dated 7.7.2011. From perusal of the record it appears that Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge proceeded with enquiry and recorded statements of departmental witnesses. The documents relied upon the department too were taken on record. 4. A report of enquiry was submitted on 28.3.2013 holding the petitioner guilty for the charges No. 4 and 6 only. In pursuant to the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the report of enquiry was placed before Hon'ble the Full Court and the Full Court in its meeting that held on 15.2.2014 exonerated the petitioner from charge No. 6 also. The Full Court, however, accepted the finding given by Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge and imposed the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Suffice to state that before imposing penalty a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the delinquent officer to furnish his explanation and the explanation given was also considered by the Full Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal giving challenge to the penalty imposed, but that came to be dismissed under an order dated 17.3.2015, passed by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice being not maintainable. After dismissal of the appeal, instant petition for writ is preferred. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal giving challenge to the penalty imposed, but that came to be dismissed under an order dated 17.3.2015, passed by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice being not maintainable. After dismissal of the appeal, instant petition for writ is preferred. 5. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the findings arrived by the Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge, as accepted by Hon'ble the Full Court, are - "(1) the findings arrived by Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge are not definite; (2) the report of Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge is absolutely non speaking and unreasoned one, as much as, that no reason has been given as to why the evidence adduced by Shri Bhopal Singh was found trustworthy vis-à-vis the other persons who did not support the allegation of misconduct; and (3) the Full Court though has given reason for not accepting the explanation tendered by the petitioner, but nothing is said about the evidence adduced by other witnesses." 6. The complete record of enquiry while considering the explanation tendered by the delinquent officer appears to have not been examined by Hon'ble the Full Court. 7. Per contra, as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the enquiry report contains adequate reasons to held the delinquent officer guilty for the charge of misconduct and further the Full Court has also examined the entire material available on record to reject the explanation given by Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge and further to affirm the findings arrived by Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge. 8. Heard learned counsels and also examined the original record of enquiry available with learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Before coming to the arguments advanced on behalf of the rival parties it would be appropriate to refer the charge No. 4, for that the delinquent officer has been found guilty. The charge aforesaid reads as under:- "Charge No. 4 That, for the detailed facts and reasons as mentioned in the statement of allegations, you during your above mentioned tenure stayed at Sikar and came to attend the court at Dantaramgarh everyday and for this purpose you used to put pressure on the relatives of the accused to provide you vehicle for commuting from Dantaramgarh to Sikar and Sikar to Dantaramgarh in lieu of providing them release orders of their seized vehicles and travelled with them" 10. We also consider it appropriate to quote the entire discussions made by Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge to hold the delinquent guilty and that reads as follows:- "No witness, except Shri G.L. Choudhary (DEW-1) and Shri Bhopal Singh (DEW-2), has stated anything about this charge. Shri G.L. Choudhary, in his cross-examination, has stated that he was not aware if any vehicle seized at Sikar was released on 'supurdginama' by the delinquent and that during the preliminary enquiry, he did not record the statement of any accused or his relatives because in the meantime he was transferred to some other post. But, this charge has been proved by Bhopal Singh (DEW-2), the then President, Bar Association, Dantaramgarh, by stating that the delinquent used to reside at Sikar when he was posted at Dantaramgarh and that whenever he granted bail to accused lodged in Sikar jail, their relatives had to arrange a vehicle and the delinquent used to travel from Dantaramgarh to Sikar in such vehicles. His statement was recorded in the preliminary enquiry, which is Exhibit DE-4. Although no influence can be taken from the preliminary enquiry or the statements recorded therein but that statement has been proved by this witness during the present enquiry proceedings in which also he has made a similar allegation. In cross-examination, though this witness was unable to name any such accused but nevertheless this is a definite evidence proving the charge against the delinquent. Similar allegation is contained in Exhibit DE-2. Bhopal Singh (DEW-2), the then President, Bar Association, Dantaramgarh, has admitted his signatures on such complaint. Other witnesses have also admitted their signatures on the complaint and the fact that a sub-committee was constituted by the Executive of the Bar Association to make the complaint of the delinquent, though they have not supported the contents of the complaint or the charges. This charge is therefore held to be proved." 11. As already stated, the charge against the delinquent officer was of putting pressure on the relatives of the accused to provide vehicle for commuting him from Dantaramgarh to Sikar and Sikar to Dantaramgarh in lieu of providing release orders for their seized vehicles. The finding arrived by Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge is not with regard to release of any vehicle but release of accused lodged at Sikar jail on bail. The finding arrived by Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge is not with regard to release of any vehicle but release of accused lodged at Sikar jail on bail. Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge, to arrive at the finding as above, relied upon the statement of Bhopal Singh (DEW-2), the then President of Bar Association, Dantaramgarh, who utterly failed to point out details of any such accused who was said to be released by the delinquent officer on bail by putting pressure or otherwise to use his or his relative's vehicle. In the enquiry report itself it was noticed that Shri Bhopal Singh was not in position to name any such accused or to provide details of any case. The only foundation to held the delinquent officer guilty is the fact that Shri Bhopal Singh, the then President of Bar Association, admitted his signatures on a complaint. Suffice to mention that the complaint also was not containing particulars of any case or accused who was said to be released on bail by the delinquent officer by using his or his relative's vehicle or any pressure was exerted by him for awarding release on bail. 12. The statement given by Shri Bhopal Singh is as follows:- "In the year 2003, I was President, Bar Association, Dantaramgarh. At that time Shri Rakesh Katara was posted as ACJM, Dantaramgarh. Me and other officers of the Bar Association, Dantaramgarh submitted a complaint dated 2.9.2003 against Shri Rakesh Katara to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Administrative Judge which is Ex. DE-1 and at the last page of this complaint 'A' to 'B' are my signatures. On basis of the same facts one more complaint is Ex. DE-2, wherein also at last page my signatures are available at 'A' to 'B'. The facts stated in complaint are not in my memory being ten years old. In relation to this complaint my statement was recorded by the then Registrar (Vigilance) Shri G.L. Choudhary at Dantaramgarh on 30.9.2003. My statement is Ex. DE-4 wherein my signatures are at 'C' to 'D'. The facts averred in the complaint were essentially written by Shri Hanuman Prasad, Secretary, but I put my signatures on that being in agreement with a resolution undertaken by the executive. The facts stated in document Ex. DE-4 were drawn as per my statement. My statement is Ex. DE-4 wherein my signatures are at 'C' to 'D'. The facts averred in the complaint were essentially written by Shri Hanuman Prasad, Secretary, but I put my signatures on that being in agreement with a resolution undertaken by the executive. The facts stated in document Ex. DE-4 were drawn as per my statement. Shri Katara, while posted at Dantaramgarh, used to reside at Sikar and he used to travel from Dantaramgarh to Sikar in the vehicles arranged by family members of accused whose bail orders were to be sent to Sikar jail for release of the accused concerned. I used to up-down from my village to Dantaramgarh, therefore, I was not remaining present in court as advocate regularly. For the same reason I am not having detailed knowledge about the facts stated in the complaint. Cross-examination by delinquent officer : The name of any accused is not in my knowledge relatives of whom would have travelled with Presiding Officer to carry bail order to Sikar. It is correct that the complaint was made with regard to judicial orders. It is correct that I put my signatures on the complaints Ex. DE-1 and 2 without reading the contents. The ACJM, Dantaramgarh was having jurisdiction of the Police Stations Khatushyamji and Dantaramgarh and not of any other police station. I am not having any knowledge about the release of any vehicle by Presiding Officer Shri Katara and also about his travel with relatives of any accused." (Translation in English from Hindi is made by us) 13. From perusal of the statement given by Shri Bhopal Singh it is apparent that he himself was not confirm about the facts averred in the complaint. He did not care even to read the contents of the complaint. Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge also noticed this fact in addition to the fact that other witnesses who were members of a sub-committee said to be constituted by the executive of the Bar Association did not support the contents of the complaint or the charges. 14. Looking to the evidence adduced by Shri Bhopal Singh, in our considered opinion, no definite finding could have not been given. It is also pertinent to mention that other witnesses, on whom the prosecution relied upon, did not support the charges. 15. 14. Looking to the evidence adduced by Shri Bhopal Singh, in our considered opinion, no definite finding could have not been given. It is also pertinent to mention that other witnesses, on whom the prosecution relied upon, did not support the charges. 15. Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge recorded statements of one Shri Hari Singh, Advocate, also who was a practicing lawyer at Dantaramgarh. This witness in specific terms stated that the delinquent officer was not using vehicle of any accused or his relative and he used to come to Dantaramgarh in his own Maruti Car. The statement given by Shri Hari Singh, who was produced in evidence by the prosecution, reads as follows:- "I am practicing advocate at Dantaramgarh since 1980. In the year 2002 and 2003 I was member of Bar Association, Dantaramgarh and presently I am President of it. The activities of Bar Association in the year 2002 and 2003 are not in my knowledge as those were in knowledge of the President and Secretary of the Association. In the year 2002 and 2003 Shri Rakesh Katara was posted at Dantaramgarh as ACJM. On the complaint Ex. DE-1 my signatures are at 'G' to 'H' but that was sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice or the Administrative Judge, i.e. not in my knowledge. The signatures were obtained by me in a meeting of the executive of the Bar. I was not a member of any subcommittee, though my name is shown in document Ex. DE-1 at 'I' to 'J'. I do not know whether any complaint Ex. DE-1 against the then ACJM, Shri Rakesh Katara, was sent by the Bar Association. I was not knowing anything about the complaint in the capacity of a member of the executive of Bar Association and I came to know about that now only. I am also not having any knowledge as to why I put my signature on document Ex. DE-1 at 'G' to 'H'. I am also not knowing that under complaint Ex. DE-1 allegations were made about fanciful orders said to be passed by Shri Rakesh Katara in criminal as well as in civil cases. Shri Rakesh Katara was not using any vehicle provided by the relatives of accused persons to travel from Dantaramgarh to Sikar. Shri Katara during his posting used to stay at Sikar as well as at Dantaramgarh. Mostly he was residing at Dantaramgarh. Shri Rakesh Katara was not using any vehicle provided by the relatives of accused persons to travel from Dantaramgarh to Sikar. Shri Katara during his posting used to stay at Sikar as well as at Dantaramgarh. Mostly he was residing at Dantaramgarh. He was not using vehicles provided by the relatives of the accused persons but was using his own vehicle. He was having his Maruti Car and he himself used to drive that. Shri Katara had good control, over his subordinate staff and the Bar was having no complaint in relation to that. I do not known why a sub-committee was constituted to submit complaints against Shri Katara." (Translation in English from Hindi is made by us) 16. This witness in specific terms stated that the delinquent officer was not using vehicles provided by accused or their relatives but using his own vehicle while in transit from Sikar to Dantaramgarh or vice-verse. 17. During the course of enquiry statements of Shri Hanuman Prasad Jangid (DEW-3), Shri Hardeva Ram Sunda (DEW-5) and Shri Laxman Singh Shekhawat (DEW-6) were also recorded at the instance of the prosecution but none of these witnesses supported the allegations. 18. The delinquent officer himself appeared in witness box as a defence witness and he was also cross examined by the Presenting Officer. In defence, he also produced certain documents, but no cognizance of the defence version at all is taken into consideration as that does not reflect in the report of enquiry. 19. We are of considered opinion that while arriving at a finding of guilt Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge should have discussed the evidence adduced by other witness also and must have given reasons as to why he find the evidence adduced by Shri Bhopal Singh more creditworthy. 20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer & Ors., reported in (1985)3 SCC 378 , held that an Enquiry Officer must assign reason as to why the evidence produced in defence did not appeal to him or was considered not creditworthy. The Enquiry Officer must permit a peep into his mind as to why evidence produced by the management appeal to him in preference to the evidence produced by the delinquent. A report of enquiry must show the reasons for conclusions and it cannot be an ipse-dixit of Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer must permit a peep into his mind as to why evidence produced by the management appeal to him in preference to the evidence produced by the delinquent. A report of enquiry must show the reasons for conclusions and it cannot be an ipse-dixit of Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking one in the sense that the conclusion must be supported by cogent reasons that appealed to the Enquiry Officer. It should all the more necessary where quasi-judicial enquiry attaches a stigma to the character of a delinquent. 21. In the case in hand, the allegation against the delinquent officer is very serious. If a judicial officer exerts pressure upon any party before it for his personal gains, then such officer is not a person fit to hold the office. In the case in hand, though the penalty imposed is not the severest one, but the charge is quite grave and such grave charge deserves to be proved only by definite and cogent evidence. We failed to notice any such cogent and definite evidence in the instant matter to arrive at a conclusion about involvement of the delinquent officer in commission of misconduct. Pertinent to notice that no discussion is made in the enquiry report about the evidence adduced by the witnesses even produced by the prosecution other than to Shri Bhopal Singh. No reason is given as to why Shri Bhopal Singh is found more creditworthy vis-à-vis other witnesses produced by the prosecution itself. No discussion is made even of the evidence adduced by the delinquent officer in defence. 22. An important aspect of the matter is that on basis of the complaints made by the Bar Association, Dantaramgarh the delinquent officer was charged for eight allegations of misconduct, but out of those six were not found sustainable even by Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge. Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge held the delinquent guilty for charges No. 6 and 4 only. The Full Court did not accept the findings arrived by Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge relating to charge No. 6 and exonerated the delinquent officer from that. This fact clearly indicates that most of the allegations made in the complaints submitted by the Bar Association, Dantaramgarh were ill-founded. 23. In view of whatever stated above, we are of considered opinion that the findings arrived as a consequence to the enquiry are laconic and deserves to be quashed. This fact clearly indicates that most of the allegations made in the complaints submitted by the Bar Association, Dantaramgarh were ill-founded. 23. In view of whatever stated above, we are of considered opinion that the findings arrived as a consequence to the enquiry are laconic and deserves to be quashed. 24. Accordingly, the petition for writ is allowed. The resolution dated 15.2.2014 undertaken by Hon'ble the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner in pursuance thereto are quashed. The petitioner is exonerated from the charge No. 4 referred in the statement of charges annexed with the memorandum dated 7.7.2011. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.