B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, Who is a member of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service, for quashing the communications dated 03.12.1999 and 22.04.2000 by which a major punishment of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been Imposed and the review petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected,
(2.) The High Court was apprised of certain allegations against the petitioner through a complaint dated 10th July, 1996 by one Jagdev Singh levelling charges of judicial dishonesty against the petitioner and to substantiate the complaint, the details of the proceedings in Bail Application No. 855 of 1995 arising out of Case Crime No. 180 of 1995 registered at P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi for offences under Sections 302, 307, 504, I.P.C. (S.T. No. 132 of 1996, State v. Ram Pal Singh) were furnished. It was stated therein that the petitioner entertained the bail application of the accused Ram Pal Singh in the said criminal trial and the said bail application was allowed after allegedly accepting Rs. 80,000/- as illegal gratification. The complaint was remitted to the District Judge, Jhansi for his comments thereof, who vide his letter dated 07.05.1997, submitted a detailed report. Upon a perusal of the said report by the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, Jhansi, the matter was recommended before the Administrative Committee for holding a regular departmental/disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and a recommendation, was also made for placing him under suspension pending enquiry.
(3.) The Administrative Committee of the High Court resolved to Initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide resolution dated 19.12.1997 and consequent thereto, a charge sheet dated 30.03.1998 was served on him specifying the allegations in respect of grant of bail in the case, referred to hereinabove. The charge sheet specified clearly that once the bail applications of the accused had been rejected twice on previous occasion on merit by the Sessions Court and the 3rd bail application had been dismissed as not pressed, then in these circumstances, entertaining the 4th bail application was a gross failure on the part of the petitioner to adherence to judicial discipline.;