L. Narayana Swamy, J.

1. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the order dated 1-10-2012 against which this writ petition is filed with a prayer to quash the same and to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits. A complaint was made by one K.M. Asif Ahmed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from him to favour a case in O.S. No. 394 of 2006 pending on the file of the Court in which the petitioner was the Presiding Officer. The learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore recorded statement of the complainant and also obtained affidavit. The complaint itself has been taken on record and departmental enquiry was initiated. Before initiation of regular enquiry, a discrete enquiry was conducted and it was opined that there is a case made out for initiation of regular enquiry. Accordingly, enquiry was initiated and Enquiry Officer was appointed. On the basis of the complaint and discrete enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority framed articles of charges in D I No. 1 of 2010 on 30-7-2010. Along with the charge-sheet list of witnesses and list of documents were furnished to the petitioner. Statement of imputation of misconduct was also supplied. The petitioner made representation and sought to drop the enquiry proceedings against him.

2. The complainant has stated in his complaint dated 15-8-2009 that he had filed O.S. No. 394 of 2006. It was pending for the last 3 years and in September 2008 he got a call from one Mr. Shafi and informed to have a talk with Shafi and pursuant to the same he went to the place where Shafi was sitting in a Santro Car No. KA 19 Z 6477. He told him to sit in the car and asked about pendency of the case. He further told that the petitioner was the Judicial Officer, he was his close friend and he would do some favour provided he pays some amount. On the same evening, again he received a call. Thereafter, he went there and saw the petitioner who was sitting in the tinted Honda SUV Car with Registration No. KA 19 6477. Shafi introduced the complainant to the Judge and Judge told the complainant that if he wants to finish the case fast, he has to pay Rs. 15 lakhs.

3. The prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W. 1 and P.Ws. 2 to 6 are the practicing Advocates of Mangalore of which P.W. 2 is its President and P.W. 7 was the Principal District Judge, who recorded the statement of the complainant and P.W. 8-the Vigilance Registrar and P.W. 9 is the Police Inspector attached to the High Court Vigilance Office. On behalf of the petitioner, himself was examined and he has not examined any independent witness and marked Exs. D. 1 to D. 15 on his behalf.

4. The Enquiry Officer after examining the respective case of the parties held that Articles of Charges have been proved. The High Court Committee-I examined the case papers and recommended the case of the petitioner for maximum punishment. The same was placed before the Full Court and the Full Court concurred with it. Later on recommendation was forwarded to His Excellency Governor, who passed an order dated 1-10-2012 exercising the power under Rule 8(viii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and imposed a penalty of dismissal from service and suspension period was treated as suspension and dismissal was with effect from the same,

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has not proved the case. He alleged mala fides against the complainant. The High Court Committee has not applied its mind while imposing the maximum punishment on the petitioner. The complaint does show that complainant was informed over phone in September 2008 and he was called to meet, accordingly he met, Shafi in turn told in respect of a case in O.S. No. 394 of 2006 in which the petitioner was the Presiding Officer, if it is to be made in favour of the complainant, he can make arrangement for discussion with the Presiding Officer and on the same day he m