Thomas, J. - (1.) A judicial magistrate has been disrobed of his judicial vestment by a panel of five judges of the Bombay High Court on the administrative side. This was sequel to an innocent litigant being wrongfully arrested, handcuffed and paraded in public. But two other judges of the same High Court, on the judicial side, ordered him to be rerobed with full chasuble. That judgment of the Division Bench is now being challenged by the Registrar of the High Court of Bombay (on behalf of the said High Court) by special leave.
(2.) First respondent was Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service. While functioning as a Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ahmadnagar he had to deal with a criminal case instituted on a police report in which the complainant was one Ranchhoddas Govinddas Gandhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'). First respondent magistrate pronounced judgment in the case acquitting the accused on 7-11-1985. But the complainant sent a petition to the District and Sessions Judge, Ahmadnagar on 4-1-1986, alleging that he was wrongfully arrested by the police on 15-10-1985 as per a warrant of arrest issued by the magistrate; and that he was handcuffed and paraded through the streets of his locality; and that he was kept in the lockup during the night; and that on the next day (16-10-1985) he was produced before the magistrate. It was further alleged that the first respondent magistrate, when the complainant was produced in open Court, retired to his chambers and ordered release of the complainant. It was further alleged in the complaint that the said arrest was knavishly manipulated at the behest of the accused in the criminal case through an illegal warrant of arrest surreptitiously stage managed.
(3.) After holding a preliminary enquiry the High Court framed charges against the first respondent and appointed Shri K. J. Rohee, Joint District Judge (as the inquiry officer) to conduct a formal inquiry into the charges. He submitted a report on 1-3-1994 exonerating the first respondent of the charges. But the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court (consisting of five judges of the Bombay High Court) after a scrutiny of the report of the inquiry officer, was not disposed to approve the findings therein. The Committee differed from the findings and proposed to proceed into the matter. A notice was thereupon issued to the first respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why the findings of the inquiry officer on the crucial points be not repudiated, and a major penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed on him.;