( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by Sri David wilson, who was at the relevant point of time serving as Sub-Judge in the Andhra pradesh Judicial Service, assailing the disciplinary action taken by the respondents-Government of Andhra pradesh and High Court of A. P. removing him from service.

( 2 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under: When the petitioner was serving as subordinate Judge at Tadepalligudem, west Godavari District, he disposed of, by his judgment and decree dated 18-2-1992, a land acquisition O. P. No. 22 of 1988 on his file awarding enhanced compensation of rs. 85,000/- per acre and 30% statutory solatium, etc. Thereafterwards, 11 persons, one G. Satyanarayana Raju and 10 others claiming to be the residents of tadepalligudem sent a petition to the learned District Judge, West Godavari district at Eluru, inter alia alleging that the petitioner is a corrupt officer and he awarded heavy compensation to the claimants in O. P. No. 22 of 1988. They sent copies of the same complaint to the Hon ble the Chief Justice as well as to the Hon ble judges of this Court. On the basis of that petition, the High Court directed the then district Judge, West Godavari District at eluru, to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Accordingly, the learned District Judge, west Godavari District conducted enquiry and submitted his report dated 29-4-1992 to the High Court. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, the High Court ordered regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and appointed the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, srikakulam, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the regular departmental enquiry. Two charges were framed against the petitioner. They read:"charge No. 1: that you, the aforedescribed sri K. David Wilson (the delinquent Officer), while working as the Subordinate Judge of tadepalligudem of West Godavari district, mala fide, picked up and selected a heavy land acquisition o. P. No. 22/88, involving high stakes, in respect of a very large extent of, as much as, Ac. 29. 33 cents, and as many as 44 coconut trees, from out of only three O. Ps, in O. P. Nos. 5/88, 22/88. and 24/88, pending at that time, on the file of that Subordinate Judge s court, because the stakes involved in the other two O. P. No. 5 and 24 of 1988 are far less, as they pertain, respectively, only, to smaller extents of lands of Ac. 2. 33 cents and Ac. 4. 08 cents; that, you took-up such mala fide enquiry into that selected O. P. No. 22/88, in pursuance of a mala fide deal entered into between you and the claimants, through their Advocates and the then Assistant Government pleader; that, in pursuance of such mala fide deal, referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, you entered into, and completed the enquiry into, that O. P. No. 22/88, within a short- time, by commencing the enquiry on 20-1-1992 and concluded on 27-1-1992 i. e. , within 7 days, and heard arguments on 31-1-1992, and finally adjudicated thereupon, on 18-2-1992, on which date the said Assistant government Pleader will lay down his office, within your knowledge and the knowledge of that Assistant government Pleader and the claimants and their advocates, and, who (that Government Pleader) actually laid-down his office on that day; that, in pursuance of such mala fide deal, enquiry and adjudication, you awarded a total compensation of more than Rs. 50,00,000. 00 (Rupees fifty lakhs only), including interest. Charge No. 2: that, the draft judgment in that O. P. No. 22/88, as contained in the Short-hand Note book of the then Stenographer, by name, sri K. Gangadhara Rao, and transcribed by him in the presence of the then District Judge, Sri B. Venkateswara Rao garu, of West godavari District, on the one hand, does r ot, at all, tally with the actually typed Draft judgment contained in that O. P. No. 22/88, as pronounced by you, on 18-2-1992, on the other hand, and that the language, and tenor and th