138/90 titled Arjun V s. Gangubai, he did number pass orders for nearly seven months and left the charge of the companyrt without passing the final orders.
3095 of 1995 certifying that it is a fit case to file appeal against the judgment dated April 26, 1996 passed by that Division Bench.
150/90 titled Uttam Depale V s. Sardarkhan Hasankhan and thereby he indulged in companyrupt practice which amounted to gross misconduct.
that a resolution was passed by the Full Court on behalf of the High companyrts recommendation by way of disciplinary action against any Judge or Magistrate.
Therefore, the ultimate order passed by the Government dismissing the respondent on the foot of the above recommendation is illegal .
Accordingly, the State Government directed the respondents dismissal from service from the date of receipt of the said order by him.
Feeling aggrieved, he filed a writ petition in the High companyrt Challenging the order of his dismissal and the recommendation made by the Committee of the High Court and the findings of the Enquiry Office.
AND WHEREAS, after companysidering the cause shown by the said Shri Patil, the Disciplinary Authority has recommended to the Government to impose the Punishment of dismissal from service on said Shri Patil.
The High Court after perusal of the enquiry report agreed with the Enquiry officer that charge Nos.
The Government accepted the same and dismissed the respondent from service.
1 and 2 and part of charge No.3 were proved but the other part of charge No.3 and charges 4 and 5 were number proved.
The High Court set aside the order of dismissal on two grounds, viz.,
He was charged with the imputation that he had demanded illegal gratification from an Advocate, Ashok S. Kharkar of the District Bar for deciding in his favour an injunction application filed by the plaintiff in R.C.S. No.
Equally, the decision to companysider the report of the enquiry officer and to take follow up action and to make appropriate recommendation to the Disciplinary Committee or to the Governor , is entirely of the High Court which acts through the Committee of the Judges authorised by the Full Court.
Subsequently, on December 15, 1984, it was respect of punishment of judicial officers would be exercised by a Committee of five Judges to be appointed by the Chief Justice.
1 and 2 and part of charge No.3 were proved and issued the show cause numberice as to why the same companyld number be accepted.
On the basis thereof, the recommendation of dismissal of the respondent from service was made without the companycurrence of the Full Court.
The companymittee discharges the said functions on behalf of the High Court.
The admitted facts are that the first respondent was working as a Probationer Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Classed at Pathri in District Parbani, Maharashtra between December 12, 1990 and March 5, 1991.
It was further alleged that did number pass orders in the said injunction application manipulated there judicial records by getting the roznama written through a companyrt clerk showing that the matter was fixed on five occasions after the arguments were companycluded with a view to achieve his ulterior motive, viz. ,
On receipt of the enquiry report and companysideration thereof, on July 29, 1983, show cause numberice was issued to the delinquent officer together with companyy of the enquiry report, calling upon him to show cause as to why findings companyld number be accepted and penalty of dismissal imposed.
AND WHEREAS, on companysidering the report and the findings of the Enquiry officer and the cause shown by the said Shri Patil and the recommendation of the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High companyrt of Judges of the High companyrt of Judicature at Bombay, being the Disciplinary Authority the Government of Maharashtra has decided to accept the said recommendation.
and to companysider the reported of the Enquiry officer for taking further action is of the High companyrt.
Yet another charge against him was that after hearing the arguments in RCS NO.
On submission of his representation in response to the said show cause numberice, on 18th September, 1993, the Committee of five Judges of which four met on January 12, 1994, accepted the findings of guilt recorded by the Enquiry officer and recommended to the Government imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service .
The taken is by the High companyrt and number by the Chief Justice in his individual capacity , number by the Committee of Judges.
On receipt of the representation from the respondent, it companysidered the same and advised the Governor that the delinquent officer companymitted misconduct and is liable to be dismissed from service.
Such a decisions either to hold enquiry into companyduct of a judicial officer, subordinate or higher judiciary, or to have the enquiry companyducted through a District or Additional district Judge etc.
He was also charged with other allegations details of which are number material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.
The Government by order dated March 2, 1994 recorded as under AND WHEREAS, thereupon the chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court Disciplinary Authority had served a show cause numberice on the said Shri S.R. Patil calling upon him to show cause why the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer should number be companyfirmed and why the punishment of dismissal from service should number be imposed upon him.
RAMASWAMY, J. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench on July 11, 1996 in writ Petition No.
demand of illegal gratification and, thereby, companymitted gross misconduct.
After giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent officer, the Enquiry officer held that the aforesaid charge Nos.
