- (1.) This is an appeal by certificate granted by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench on July 11, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 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.
(2.) The admitted facts are that the first respondent was working as a Probationer Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pathri in District Parbani, Maharashtra between December 12, 1990 and March 5, 1991. 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. 150/90 titled Uttam Depale v. Sardarkhan Hasankhan and thereby he indulged in corrupt practice which amounted to gross misconduct. It was further alleged that he did not pass orders in the said injunction application manipulated the judicial records by getting the roznama written through a Court Clerk showing that the matter was fixed on five occasions after the arguments were concluded with a view to achieve his ulterior motive, viz., demand of illegal gratification and, thereby, committed gross misconduct. He was also charged with other allegations details of which are not material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Yet another charge against him was that after hearing the arguments in RCS No. 138/90 titled Arjun v. Gangubai and in RCS No. 134/90 titled Ratnamala v. Pandurang, he did not pass order for nearly seven months and left the charge of the Court without passing the final orders.
(3.) After giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent-delinquent officer, the Enquiry Officer held that the aforesaid charge Nos. 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 not proved. On receipt of the enquiry report and consideration thereof, on July 29, 1983, show cause notice was issued to the delinquent officer together with copy of the enquiry report, calling upon him to show cause as to why findings could not be accepted and penalty of dismissal imposed. On submission of his representation in response to the said show cause notice, 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 Government by order dated March 2, 1994 recorded as under : "AND WHEREAS, thereupon the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being the Disciplinary Authority had served a show cause notice on the said Shri S. R. Patil calling upon him to show cause why the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer should not be confirmed and why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him. AND WHEREAS, after considering 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. AND WHEREAS, on considering 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 Court of Judicature at Bombay, being the Disciplinary Authority the Government of Maharashtra has decided to accept the said recommendation.";