The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures and rules in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the penalty of compulsory retirement based on the appellant's misconduct.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J:

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant herein is a judicial officer. His services were terminated by the Government of Maharashtra on the recommendations made by the High Court of Bombay relying on or on the basis of a report of an inquiry officer appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against him.

3. Appellant joined the judicial service in the State of Maharashtra on 16th November, 1995. His wife was also a judicial officer. She, however, resigned in December, 2003.

4. In relation to orders of transfer passed against him, the appellant on various occasions had been issued several memos. It is not necessary for us to deal therewith.

5. Several strictures were also passed against him, on the judicial side. Several adverse remarks were also passed.

A complaint was made on 24th January, 2001 wherein the following allegations were made against the appellant, that he was in the habit of :

(a) "refusing to grant leave.

(b) Issuing notices intentionally

(c) Noting remarks in red ink in the service books of employees (d) Insulting the employees

(e) Writing "not satisfactory work" in the report for increment and not sending the said report within time.

(f) Rejecting the applications for grant of G.P.F. (g) Converting leave into leave without pay

(h) Insisting employees to produce medical certificates and produce receipt of bills.

(i) Threatening Assistant Superintendent "

6. The disciplinary committee of the High Court opined that a departmental proceeding should be initiated against him. Statement of imputations, the charge sheet, list of witnesses and list of documents as approved by the disciplinary committee were served upon him. The imputation of charges served upon him are :

"(a) During his tenure at Patan, the Petitioner was not interested in discharging his duties and had submitted as many as six representations for transfer, all of which were rejected.

(b) The Petitioner had used intemperate language while communicating with the High Court under his representation dated 02.05.2000.

(c) The Petitioner was in the habit of frequently leaving the Headquarters, thereby causing inconvenience to Advocates and litigants. The Petitioner used to behave whimsically and adamantly and was harassing the litigants, Advocates and employees only with an intention to get transfer at a convenient place. The Petitioner was unable to run the office administration effectively and smoothly and had as such exhibited his incompetence in administrative discharge of his duties."

7. The District Judge of Satara was appointed as an inquiry officer. He, having considered the materials on record, opined that inter alia all the charges to the effect that while submitting his representation to the High Court in regard to his transfer, he had used intemperate language and had made allegations against the administrative authority, were proved. He was also found to have been harassing members of the Bar, litigants and even members of the staff. It was opined that he was not in a position to run the administration effectively and smoothly.

8. The disciplinary committee of the High Court, upon consideration of the said report, in its meeting dated 16th August, 2004 decided to issue a second show cause notice to the appellant. In response thereto, he stated to have been expecting such a notice from the disciplinary committee and, thus, had no fear in his mind therewith. He further stated that 'if the High Court wanted to dismiss him he would have nothing to say because he was part of the judiciary and had been knowing that the disciplinary authority would take action against him'. He also contented that it was the High Court who had persistently put him in difficulty by transferring frequently and he was not bothered about any orders passed