In the view of the High Court, the companyclusions of the Committee which were accepted by the Full Court cannot be held to have been based on numberevidence there were strong circumstances indicating that the Appellant imposed punishments in serious offences under the Customs Act 1962 companytrary to statutory mandate his explanation that he was number aware of the statutory provision having been recently promoted as CJM was number acceptable there were glaring discrepancies in the award of punishments to various accused and, most significantly, the sentence imposed on each accused was such that numbere of them would remain in jail any longer.
4 In Criminal Case 1293 of 1995, the Appellant delivered a judgment on 22 January 1997 companyvicting the accused, but awarded a sentence of imprisonment less than the minimum prescribed by Section 135.
In the second criminal case, Criminal Case 675 of 1994, the trial involved offences inter alia under Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962.
The High Court upheld the view of the Disciplinary Committee which were accepted by the Full Court that an inference of oblique motive would have to be drawn from the record, having due regard to the fact that i the Appellant had recorded numberspecial or adequate reasons for awarding less than the minimum sentence and ii the sentences which were awarded to the accused were such that numbere of them would have to undergo any further term of imprisonment after taking into account the period undergone as an under trial.
The charges which emanated against him from a chargesheet dated 31 August 2001 related to his work as a judicial officer when he was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhuj from 6 May 1996 to 15 June 1998.
Upon companysidering the reply submitted by the Appellant the Disciplinary Committee in its decision rendered on 1 July 2009 held the charges to be proved and took the view that the Appellant was liable to be dismissed from service.
The Committee found the charge of misconduct was established and came to the companyclusion that the Appellant should be dismissed from service under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1971.
8 The companyduct of the Appellant as a judicial officer formed the subject matter of another disciplinary inquiry Inquiry 6 of 2001 in which a chargesheet was issued on 5 November 2001.
The procedure envisages that after an Inquiry Officer submits a report, the report together with underlying material on the record would be examined by a Disciplinary Committee companysisting of two judges.
The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court found that the charges against the Appellant have been established in one but number the second of two disciplinary inquiries in respect of his companyduct as a judicial officer in the district judiciary.
By its judgment and order dated 23 February 2012 the Division Bench held that the charge of misconduct in Disciplinary Inquiry 6 of 2001 was number established.
The State Government by a numberification dated 14 July 2009 dismissed the Appellant from service.
The charges against the Appellant were that despite his transfer on 23 April 1993, the Appellant had with an oblique motive requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana to transfer 26 out of several part heard cases selectively, pertaining to offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Two criminal cases involving offences punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962 and the Imports Exports Control Act 1947 were tried by him.
The Disciplinary Committee arrived at a decision on 1 July 2009 holding the Appellant guilty of the charges of misconduct.
The second charge was that in 68 cases involving offences punishable under the Factories Act 1948 the Appellant had imposed negligible punishments of fine ranging from ?
By a judgment dated 11 March 1997 the Appellant held the twelve accused who were brought to trial to be guilty of the charges.
6 The Appellant denied the charges in his reply to the chargesheet.
3 The Appellant was recruited as a Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate in 1981 in the judicial service of the State of Gujarat.
The High Court numbered that since the value of the goods in the case exceeded rupees one lakh, Section 135 provided for imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine.
2 These proceedings arise from a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 23 February 2012 in an application filed by the Appellant challenging the punishment of dismissal imposed upon him upon a disciplinary inquiry.
This companyclusion of the Disciplinary Committee was held to belie the charge that the Appellant was being selective about retaining part heard cases.
10 The Appellant initiated proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution in order to assail the findings which were arrived at in the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of dismissal.
The Committee was of the view that the acts of the Appellant were number totally bona fide and proposed that this should be companysidered when the case of the Appellant for promotion arose in future.
However, save and except for five of the accused persons, the Appellant awarded less than the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 135.
The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 28 January 2004 came to the companyclusion that there was numberindependent evidence to establish that the Appellant had engaged in a companyrupt practice.
9 The Disciplinary Committee of the High Court came to the companyclusion that there was insufficient evidence to hold the Appellant guilty of an oblique motive or companyrupt practice.
7 The report of the Disciplinary Committee was companysidered at a Chamber meeting of the Full Court on 26 September 2005 when it was resolved to remand the matter to the same Disciplinary Committee for reconsideration.
While dealing with offences under the Customs Act 1962, he was expected to refer to the penal provisions under which punishment was being handed down after recording a companyviction.
The Disciplinary Committee took a fresh decision on 4 April 2006 to the effect that there being numberevidence about companyruption, the finding of the inquiry officer was companyrect.
Moreover, the sentence of imprisonment was so structured that after allowing the benefit of a set off, the accused was number required to remain in jail for a further period.
Upon the resolution of the Full Court, the Disciplinary Committee recorded tentative reasons to disagree with the report of the Inquiry Officer and called upon the Appellant to show cause why he should number be held guilty of the charges levelled and be dismissed from the service.
When the report of the Disciplinary Committee came up before the Full Court at a Chamber meeting held on 5 March 2007, a reconstituted Disciplinary Committee was called upon to look into the matter again and to issue a numberice to show cause to the Appellant.
The State Government acting on the decision of the High Court issue an order of dismissal on 14 July 2009.
The Appellant was charged with a dereliction of duty and of acting in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer.
The Full Court of the High Court resolved that the charges against the Appellant were proved and decided to dismiss the Appellant from service.
The second stage for the Disciplinary Committee to prepare and submit its report would be after issuing a numberice to show cause to the officer and granting him a personal hearing after which the Disciplinary Committee would prepare a report companytaining its reasoned companyclusions regarding the punishment.
More significantly, the punishments awarded to all the accused were structured in such a manner that numbere of the accused would have to serve any further sentence, after accounting for the set off for the period spent in jail as under trial prisoner.
Alternatively, the Committee held that even assuming that there was numberoblique motive, the established facts reflected gross negligence and a dereliction of duty on the part of the Appellant.
Fourteen accused were alleged to be involved in the smuggling of 275 silver slabs of a value of ?
The High Court numbered that the Appellant was a judicial officer since 1982, and had worked for nearly fourteen years as a Judge.
When a Full Court companysidered the view of the Disciplinary Committee on 5 March 2007 a fresh Disciplinary Committee was assigned to relook into the matter and to issue a show cause numberice to the Appellant.
The High Court, after adverting to the report of the Disciplinary Committee numbered that there was numberevidence in regard to which cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were part heard before the Appellant.
All the accused were granted a set off.
During the companyrse of the inquiry, witnesses were examined in support of the charges, among them being the Special government prosecutor and Superintendent of Customs.
At its Chamber meeting on 26 September 2005, the Full Court remanded the proceedings to the Disciplinary Committee.
The Disciplinary Committee held that though there was an absence of sufficient evidence to establish an oblique motive or an allegation of companyruption, an element of doubt existed from the manner in which the Appellant had sentenced each of the accused, bearing in mind the period of custody as under trial prisoners.
Section 135 3 also specifies what shall number be companysidered as special and adequate reasons.
The report of the Disciplinary Committee was adopted by the Full Court.
The Disciplinary Committee did number agree with the reasons adduced by the Inquiry Officer but numberetheless was of the view that the Appellant should be exonerated.
The Disciplinary Committee would submit its provisional companyclusions in a report which would laid before the High Court and this would become a decision of the Court after a stipulated period.
The report of the Inquiry Officer was placed before a Disciplinary Committee of the High Court companysisting of two judges.
In view of its findings, the High Court declined to interfere with the punishment of dismissal.
The trial of two of the accused who are absconding was separated from the rest.
He was promoted as a Civil Judge Senior Division in 1996.
The Inquiry Officer exonerated the Appellant.
The Appellant responded to the numberice to show cause and was granted a personal hearing.
The Disciplinary Committee recorded its tentative disagreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer and issue a numberice to the show cause to the Appellant.
In the view of the Committee, a huge quantity of companytraband was involved and the Appellant ought number to have taken a lenient view, companytrary to settled principles of law.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J Leave granted.
The charges were held number to have been established.
That has given rise to these proceedings.
An Inquiry Officer was appointed.
The Disciplinary Committee took a fresh decision and reiterated its earlier view.
500, companytrary to the decisions of the High Court and had indulged in a companyrupt practice.
The allegation was that these cases were indicated as being part heard though numbermaterial evidence had been recorded.
The Disciplinary Committee companysidered the matter again.
The Committee held that an inference companyld be drawn on the basis of material with regard to the existence of an oblique motive since neither a sufficient number reasonable explanation was provided by the Appellant.
5,86,50,620/ .
100 to ?
