JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 15.11.2017 whereby he was removed from service. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the year 2013 in pursuance to his clearing the Rajasthan Judicial Service (District Judge Cadre) Examination. The petitioner had been earning good reports during the period of his service. On 24.01.2016, when the petitioner was posted as Special Judge, Special Court, ACD Cases No. 2, Jaipur, a complaint was lodged against him regarding outraging modesty of complainant Prerna Sharma. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet. Enquiry Officer vide enquiry report dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure-8) held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not established. Thereafter, notice of disagreement dated 02.06.2017 was served to the petitioner under Rule 16(10A) of the Rules. The petitioner submitted his reply to the disagreement notice. However, the Full Court of this Court in a meeting held on 28.10.2017, resolved to reject the representation/reply submitted by the petitioner and held him guilty of all the charges framed against him. Petitioner was removed from service vide impugned order dated 15.11.2017. Hence, petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved against the order of his removal from service. 3. Respondent No. 1 in its written statement has admitted the factum of service tenure of the petitioner and the enquiry held against him in view of the complaint filed against him by Prerna Sharma. It has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed as the impugned order had been passed after following due process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Enquiry Officer after exhaustively going through the material on record had rightly held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not established. Notice of disagreement had not been served on the petitioner in terms of the Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Enquiry Officer after exhaustively going through the material on record had rightly held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not established. Notice of disagreement had not been served on the petitioner in terms of the Rules. As per Rule 16(9) of the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority should have sent the matter back to the Enquiry Officer for further/de-novo enquiry in case it was of the opinion that the enquiry already conducted had been laconic in some respect or the other. The petitioner had unblemished career to his credit and has been punished on false allegations. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has opposed the petition and has submitted that as per Rule 16(10A) of the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority was required to record reasons for its disagreement with the enquiry report. In the present case, sufficient reasons had been given by the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the enquiry report. In-fact, from the statements of the witnesses, who had appeared before the Enquiry Officer, it was evident that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him. Petitioner was living in a flat opposite the flat where the victim was residing and had molested the victim. Even the Enquiry Officer had opined that the conduct of the petitioner was not proper and judicious and it raised a suspicion against the petitioner with regard to his indiscreet behaviour. 6. Vide order dated 16.07.2013 (Annexure-1), the petitioner was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge along with others. A complaint was made against the petitioner by Prerna Sharma. Following charges were framed against the petitioner: "STATEMENT OF CHARGE NO.1 That you, Mr. Praveen Kumar, while working as Sessions Judge, Spl. Court, ACD Cases No.2, Jaipur were residing in Govt. house at Nyay Deep, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur opposite the Govt. accommodation of Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional District & Sessions Judge No.6 Jaipur Metro, Jaipur. On 19.01.2016 around 07.00 P.M. you called Ms. Prerna Sharma, neice of Mr. Ramakant Sharma, at your house saying that your daughter Ananya is calling her. When she came in your house, you kissed her forceably and pressed her breasts and tried to make sexual relations with her and thereby outraged her modesty. On 19.01.2016 around 07.00 P.M. you called Ms. Prerna Sharma, neice of Mr. Ramakant Sharma, at your house saying that your daughter Ananya is calling her. When she came in your house, you kissed her forceably and pressed her breasts and tried to make sexual relations with her and thereby outraged her modesty. That the above acts and conduct on your part tantamount to gross misconduct and an act unbecoming of a judicial officer and thereby you have failed to maintain dignity and decorum of the office, which amounts to violation of provisions of Rule 4 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct Rules), 1971 and which is punishable under rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. STATEMENT OF CHARGE NO.2 That, you, Mr. Praveen Kumar, while working as Sessions Judge Spl. Court, ACD Cases No.2, Jaipur were residing in Govt. residential house at Nyay Deep, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur in front of Govt. accommodation of Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional District & Sessions Judge No.6. Jaipur Metro, Jaipur. On 20.01.2016 around 7.00 P.M. when Ms. Prerna Sharma was walking upstairs towards house of Mr. Ramakant Sharma, you again called her in your house saying "Bulbul, come in the house for a minute" and thereby you again tried to outrage her modesty. That the above acts and conduct on your part tantamount to gross misconduct and an act unbecoming of a judicial officer and thereby you have failed to maintain dignity and decorum of the office, which amounts to violation of provisions of Rule 4 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct Rules), 1971 and which is punishable under rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958." 7. Departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules was conducted against the petitioner. Enquiry Officer vide enquiry report dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure-8) held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not established. However, Enquiry Officer further observed as under: "32. However, before parting I would like to put on record that the Delinquent Officer has admitted to lending money to the complainant, a young girl, and ward of a colleague and neighbour, Shri Rama Kant Sharma without informing him of the request of the complainant and taking him into confidence was not proper. Propriety demands that if a young person requests for money as loan, in normal circumstances the guardian should have been informed. Propriety demands that if a young person requests for money as loan, in normal circumstances the guardian should have been informed. This act of lending money to a young girl without informing the Uncle of the complainant was certainly not a judicious act and raises a needle of suspicious and indiscreet Judicial officer, which may raise eyebrows in the public and to the discomfiture of a colleague whose family is involved unwittingly for which he may be dealt with separately, if deemed fit by Hon'ble the Chief Justice." 8. The Disciplinary Authority, while disagreeing with the enquiry report served a notice of disagreement dated 02.06.2017 under Rule 16(10A) of the Rules upon the petitioner. Said notice dated 02.06.2019 (Annexure-9) reads as under: "CONFIDENTIAL No.Estt.B2(iii)/39/2016/6220 Date : 02.06.2017 From: Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. To : Shri Praveen Kumar, An Officer of D.J. Cadre, Under Suspension H.Q. C/o Registrar (Admn.) Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. Sub : Notice of disagreement under Rule 16 (10 A) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958. Sir, You were served with the charge sheet dated 17th February, 2016. The inquiry was conducted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 followed by inquiry report. The report was considered by the High Court and found issues of disagreement and decided to convey it to you. They are as follows: 1. The Statements of PW-2 Ms. Shivani Sharma and PW-3 Ramakant Sharma have been referred in the inquiry report but were not taken into consideration while drawing conclusions of charge No. 1. The finding is required to be drawn after considering those statements. 2. The Charge No. 2 was not found proved on preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof has been taken, as required in a criminal case. The hearsay evidence is permissible in the disciplinary inquiries and the standard proof is different than required in the criminal case. The finding of Charge No.2 needs to be recorded as per the standard of proof required in the disciplinary inquiry. 3. The inquiry Judge found lending of money to the complainant without taking colleague and neighbour into confidence. It was not found to be a judicious act, rather, suspicious and indiscreet behaviour, yet it was not taken while describing the incidence of 19th and 20th January, 2016. 4. The corroborative evidence was not considered while drawing conclusion. 5. 3. The inquiry Judge found lending of money to the complainant without taking colleague and neighbour into confidence. It was not found to be a judicious act, rather, suspicious and indiscreet behaviour, yet it was not taken while describing the incidence of 19th and 20th January, 2016. 4. The corroborative evidence was not considered while drawing conclusion. 5. The conclusion have been drawn mainly based on a version of the complainant in the cross-examination and the call details. It was held to be a case of shifting version. The statement of witness has to be considered in totality and not by taking one version. The scrutiny of the evidence has not been made, as required. You are served with a copy of the inquiry report with the issues of disagreement. You may submit reply to this notice within fifteen days. In case reply to the notice is not submitted within the period given above, the High Court would draw conclusions on the issues of disagreement. In case of reply, the conclusions would be drawn after considering it. Encl. As above. Yours faithfully, sd/- REGISTRAR GENERAL" 9. Petitioner submitted his reply to the notice of disagreement. The same was duly considered by the Full Court of this Court in its meeting held on 28.10.2017 and it was resolved as under: "The representation/explanation submitted by the Officer to the Notice of disagreement was thoroughly considered. On close consideration of the entire matter, no substance was found in the representation/explanation, therefore RESOLVED to reject the representation and hold the officer guilty of all the charges. In view of the gravity of charges, further RESOLVED to recommend imposition of penalty of removal from service against the officer." 10. On the basis of the resolution passed by the Full Court of this Court, impugned order was passed whereby penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. In this factual background, it is to be considered as to whether the impugned order is liable to be upheld. 11. So far as argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 16(9) of the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority should have remanded the matter to the Enquiring Authority for further/de-novo enquiry, is concerned, the same is without any force. 12. Rule 16(9) of the Rules reads as under: "16. 11. So far as argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 16(9) of the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority should have remanded the matter to the Enquiring Authority for further/de-novo enquiry, is concerned, the same is without any force. 12. Rule 16(9) of the Rules reads as under: "16. Procedure for imposing major penalties: (1)xxxxxx (2)xxxxxxx (3)xxxxxxx (9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. [The Disciplinary Authority may while considering the report of the Enquiring Authority for just and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing remand the case for further/de-novo enquiry, in case it has reason to believe that the enquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other.]" 13. Thus, it is evident from the above provision that the Disciplinary Authority may remand the case for further/de-novo enquiry in case it has reason to believe that there had been some laconic in some respect or the other in the enquiry already conducted. Reading of the above provision does not lead to the inference that the Disciplinary Authority was bound to remand the case for further/de-novo enquiry. Disciplinary Authority had the discretion to remand the case to the inquiring authority for further/de-novo enquiry in case the circumstances so required. However, in the present case, the procedure under Rule 16(10A) of the Rules was followed. There is no procedural error in the present case. 14. The law regarding judicial review is well settled. In Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. Vs. Abrar Ali, (Civil Appeal No. 2148 of 2015 decided on 14.12.2016), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: "The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to re-appreciation of evidence. It is settled law that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 this Court held as follows: 7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 this Court held as follows: 7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations." 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council Neemuch Vs Mahadeo Real Estate & Others,2019 7 MhLJ 306 (SC) has held as under: "16. This Court recently in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission Vs. Abdul Halim,2019 SCCOnLineSC 902 had again an occasion to consider the scope of interference under Article 226 in an administrative action. "31. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error or law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan V. Mallikarjuna, (1960) AIR SC 137 . If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan V. Mallikarjuna, (1960) AIR SC 137 . If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. 32. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. 33. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which ha led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect." 17. It could thus be seen that an interference by the High Court would be warranted only when the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law, i.e., when the error is apparent on the fact of the record and is self evident. The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at. It has been reiterated that the test is not what the court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken. It has been reiterated that the test is not what the court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken. Not only this but such a decision must have led to manifest injustice." 16. Although, the Enquiry Officer had held that charges were not proved against the petitioner but it had observed that the conduct of the petitioner was not above board. The Enquiry Officer observed that the act of the petitioner in giving money to the complainant (as admitted by the petitioner) without informing her uncle (his colleague) was not judicious and raised suspicion regarding his behaviour. 17. The complainant (Prerna Sharma) appeared as P.W.1 and stated that the Delinquent Officer had asked her to come to his house on 19.01.2016 at about 7.00 P.M. on the pretext that his daughter was calling her. When the complainant entered the drawing room of the Delinquent Officer's house, he caught her and kissed her on her neck and cheek and pressed her breasts and asked her to become his girlfriend and stated that he would give her good time. The complainant, however, managed to escape. On the next day, i.e. 20.01.2016, while the complainant was going upstairs towards her flat, Delinquent Officer was present outside his flat and called her by her pet name 'Bulbul' and asked her to come inside the house. She became scared and ran inside her flat and started crying and narrated the incident to Shivani, daughter of her uncle, who was present in the house. 18. Statement of the complainant was corroborated by Shivani Sharma (P.W.2) and Ramakant Sharma (P.W.3). It has been noticed by the Enquiry Officer that Narendra Singh (D.W.1) had admitted that on night of 20.01.2016, Ramakant Sharma (P.W.3) had visited house of Delinquent Officer. 19. Ramakant Sharma (P.W.3) deposed that he had gone to house of the Delinquent Officer after the incident was narrated to him by the complainant on 20.01.2016 and when he rang the bell at about 9.00 P.M., he was informed that Delinquent Officer had gone to sleep. The said part of statement of Ramakant Sharma (P.W.3) is duly corroborated by Narendra Singh (D.W.1). At about 9.30 P.M., Ramakant Sharma (P.W.3) heard siren of deliquent officer's car and confronted Delinquent Officer regarding his misbehaviour with Prerna Sharma. 20. The said part of statement of Ramakant Sharma (P.W.3) is duly corroborated by Narendra Singh (D.W.1). At about 9.30 P.M., Ramakant Sharma (P.W.3) heard siren of deliquent officer's car and confronted Delinquent Officer regarding his misbehaviour with Prerna Sharma. 20. So far as Narendra Singh (D.W.1) is concerned, he was working as a peon under the Delinquent Officer. It is possible that Narendra Singh (D.W.1) had denied the occurrence being servant under the Delinquent Officer. Moreover, as per D.W.1, he was working in the kitchen from 6.30 P.M. onwards, whereas, the incident had occurred at about 7.00 P.M. Since, Narendra Singh (D.W.1) was in the kitchen, he may not have witnessed the incident. 21. The complainant was a young girl and was student of BCA, First Year. She had lost her father at a young age and on account of re-marriage of her mother, she had started residing with her aunt and uncle, Ramakant Sharma (Additional District Judge). Flat of Ramakant Sharma was opposite the flat of the Delinquent Officer. Hence, it can be said that charges levelled against the petitioner were duly established. 22. The entire evidence available on the file and the facts and circumstances of the case were duly considered by the Full court in its meeting held on 28.10.2017 and it was resolved to reject the representation/explanation submitted by the petitioner and held him guilty of all charges. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Full Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, does not require any judicial review. Resolution of the Full Court cannot be said to be perverse, inviting judicial review. Hence, impugned order is liable to be upheld and calls for no interference. 23. Dismissed.