MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

1. Admit. Respondents waive notice. By consent, the appeal is heard and decided finally at the admission stage.

2. Though it is a First Appeal, under Bombay Public Trusts Act, it is to be considered in the form of Second Appeal. In this Appeal, substantial questions of law is formulated as follows:-

(i) Whether the decision of the Court violates the Doctrine of Proportionality?

Though only one substantial question of law is framed, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued and suggested more substantial questions of law which were not accepted but only one is framed as a substantial question of law. Before dealing with the said question of law, his submissions are taken into account.

3. Appellant No. 1 is a Trust in the name of goddess Tukai. The Trust owns immovable property i.e. a temple and land admeasuring 2 to 3 acres. The families of the appellants are appointed as Trustees and they are also Pujaris known as Gurav. Since nearly 100 years they are offering services to goddess. Though they are not from one unit of the family, they are the branches of one original family. The respondents are the members of the Gram Panchayat of Village Kondhanpur, where the temple and the Trust situate. The respondents are also the members of different units of one original family. The respondents have filed application under section 41D of the Mumbai Public Trust Act praying that there is non-performance of functions as trustee and breach of the scheme and object of trust is frustrated due to misfeasance and malfeasance, on the part of trustees. So, they are to be removed from the Trusteeship. The application filed by the Respondents was allowed and the application made by the appellants was rejected by the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 31.10.1977. Thereafter, an application was moved before the District Court who upheld the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner. Hence, the appellants are before this Court, in this appeal.

4. Mr. Walawalkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, made elaborate submissions on the point of substantial questions of law as follows:-

(i) Whether the appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below is totally perverse, incorrect and erroneous by reason of reliance placed by the Courts below on the stray sentences of alleged admissions by reading them in isolation with the other evidence and especially by ignoring the Explanations given by the appellants and Respondents' own suggestions given to the witnesses of the appellants which destroyed the effect of those admissions relied on by the lower courts against the appellants?

(ii) Whether the charges as framed were sufficient in law to give sufficient and proper opportunity in law to the appellants to meet those charges?

(iii) Whether the charges were vague and were not sufficient as required by law to give opportunity to the appellants to meet them and whether that has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the appellants, in as much as the same, if found true, would result into serious consequences for them resulting in a blot on them?

(iv) Whether the evidence led by the respondents was sufficient in law to meet the requirement of high standard of proof as required by law in a case of disqualification of a trustee under section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950?

(v) Whether the judgments of the lower courts are sustainable in law when they have not addressed themselves to the issue of proportionality of punishment of removal of appellants to be inflicted on them with reference to the vague charges leveled against them?

5. He submitted that this is a quasi criminal trial. Hence, the charges ought to have been precise and the degree of proof should be higher than the general preponderance of probabilities like civil trial. He submitted that though the issue of misfeasance and malfeasance is framed in charge No. 2 and was also in point No. 2 of the appellant Court, the charges are va