(S.A. Bobde, J.)

Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner, who has been dismissed from judicial service under Rule 5, Sub-Rule (1) of Clause (ix) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 by the Government of Maharashtra by the order dated 23.2.2011, has challenged his dismissal by way of this writ petition.

3. A departmental enquiry was duly conducted after receipt of a complaint by 417 persons from village Kalambusare within the jurisdiction of Uran. The complaint contained allegations that the petitioner has been using his official position to support his brother who was involved in politics. The complaint also contained an allegation that he called meeting of the villagers of his group to instruct and instigate them to give false evidence against the rival group of his brother and that due to this behaviour quarrels frequently took place against the villagers. It was also alleged that the petitioner prevails on the police to register criminal offence against the villagers. A show cause notice was issued, calling upon the petitioner to show cause in respect of the allegations of the complaint. An enquiry was duly conducted. The charges and the findings of the Enquiry Officer against the said charges are as follows:-

POINTS FINDINGS

1) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that the delinquent Shri Chandrahas Baliram Mhatre is in the habit of instigating his brother Nandkumar and other family members to quarrel with other villagers of Kalambusare and called meeting of the villagers of his group to instruct and instigate them to lodge false report and give false evidence against rivals and misused his office as Judicial Magistrate to instigate the villagers in indulging destructive and antisocial activities? No

2) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that the delinquent Shri Chandrahas Baliram Mhatre visited police station Uran and instigated the police to lodge the criminal offences against the villagers? Partly yes

3) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that the delinquent Shri Chandrahas Baliram Mhatre met Shri A.P. Kulkarni, the then Judicial Magistrate, Uran in his chamber for 4 to 5 times on working days and got acquitted his brother Nandkumar Baliram Mhatre and other family members for the offences tried against them? Yes. The authority has proved that the delinquent met Shri A.P. Kulkarni, JMFC, Uran in his Chamber on working day on 4 to 5 times.

4) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that on 7/10/07 at the time of Gram-panchayat election of Kalambusare, his brother Nandkumar and other associates attacked Shri Suresh Raut apprehending that his party namely 'Indrayani Samajik Sanghatana' would win the election and therefore there had been commotion and therefore the complainant Suresh Raut went to police station Uran in the same night to lodge the report against Nandkumar, the brother of delinquent and his associates but he was arrested by police of Uran Police Station on 8/10/07 at 4.00 a.m. on the demand of members of opposite party?Yes

5) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that on 10/10/2007 delinquent Shri C.B. Mhatre went to village Kalambusare and asked his neighbours to give statement against complainant to the effect that he (complainant Suresh Raut) has trespassed the house of his brother Nandkumar and thereafter took his mother Taibai to police station Uran and sat in cabin of Sr.Police Inspector and that Time complainant Suresh Raut went there and told the police inspector that he wants to lodge report against the delinquent and that time mother of the delinquent lodged report against Shri Suresh Raut at his instance and then left the police station, but mother of the delinquent withdrawn the report lodged against Shri Suresh Raut? Yes. But disciplinary Authority has failed to prove that the delinquent instigated his neighbours to give false statements.

6) Whether the disciplinary autho