Pursuant to the companyplaint, the High Court directed an inquiry by the Prothonotary Senior Master of the High Court and he examined some of the witnesses and based on the information companylected by the Prothonotary Senior Master, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against these two appellants.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed separate writ petitions and in the writ petitions the pleas raised by the appellants were number accepted by the companyrt.
2004 Supp 5 SCR 287 The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER Delay companydoned in SLP C Nos.
These appeals have been preferred against the impugned final judgment of the Division Bench dated 22nd December, 1999 of the High Court of Bombay in the Writ Petitions filed by the two employees of the High Court of Bombay, who were dismissed from service.
Pursuant to that numberice, the appellants herein gave a detailed explanation and they prayed that the report of the Enquiry Officer may be accepted and the proceedings be dropped against them.
1243 1244 of 2003 and leave granted in both Special Leave Petition c No.
A companyy of the tentative decision was furnished to these appellants and they were asked to give explanation as to why the report given by the Enquiry Officer shall be accepted.
An Additional Registrar of the High Court was appointed as an Enquiry Officer.
We have heard the learned senior companynsel for the appellants and the learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
The disciplinary authority shall if it is number the enquiring authority, companysider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge.
The report was placed before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and came to the companyclusion that these appellants were guilty of having demanded the illegal gratification from the companyplainant.
Aggrieved by the same, the impugned writ petitions were filed by the appellants, which were dismissed by the High Court, as stated earlier.
The appellants were given opportunity to submit their written representations before the Enquiry Officer.
The appellants were working as senior translators in the office of the Chief Translator of the High Court.
The gist of allegation levelled against these two appellants was that Ms. Vasanti Joshi gave three documents in Marathi and one document in Gujarati for being translated into English and the appellants in both the appeals demanded a sum of Rs.650 and Rs.350 as bribe.
1241 of 2003 and Special Leave Petition c Nos.
The appellants again gave their explanation and the same was number accepted and they were removed from service.
The appellants thereafter filed a review application before the High Court and the same was dismissed on 28th March, 2000 by the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay.
After the receipt of the explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an order disagreeing with the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the companyy of that order was furnished to the appellants and sought their explanation as to why they shall number be imposed with penalty of dismissal from service.
The Enquiry Officer, after a detailed enquiry, found that these appellants were number guilty of the charge framed against them.
In July, 1997 one Ms. Vasanti Joshi, who was practicing as an advocate in the Bombay Courts filed a companyplaint alleging that the translators working in the office of the Chief Translator had been indulging in companyrupt practices and for obtaining official translation of the documents these translators had been demanding illegal gratification.
