HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Vs. SHIRISHKUMAR RANGRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(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 :