IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is the preponderance of probabilities, and the Disciplinary Authority's findings are upheld unless there is a clear violation of natural justice or a lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT

Jitendra Jain, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 5 th December 2019 passed by Respondent No.1, whereby Respondent No.1 has removed the Petitioner-Judicial Officer from the Government Service in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.

Brief facts are as under:-

3. The Petitioner was a Judicial Officer appointed in 2009 by Respondent No.l-State. Pursuant to complaints received, the Petitioner was served with Articles of Charge on 5 th July 2017 by framing three charges. Alongwith the Articles of Charge, the Petitioner was furnished with statement of imputation, copy of anonymous complaint along with compact disc (CD), copy of complaint dated 16th December 2013 of Shri. Bilal Sultan Mistry, copy of conversation recorded in the CD, copy of complaint dated 18th January 2014 from Shri. Babbu Mehbul Khan and copy of conversation recorded in the CD sent by the said complainant, report of Principal District Judge, Ratnagiri alongwith annexures and copy of statement of Advocate S. S. Butala. List of witnesses were also furnished to the Petitioner. Charge No.1 related to acceptance of bribe through Shri. Harish Keer, peon attached to the Petitioner in connection with acquittal of an accused for an offence punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). In the said charge it was mentioned that the complainants approached Shri. Harish Keer for getting acquittal order in POCSO case. There were telephonic conversation between the complainant and Shri. Harish Keer. Initially the demand was made for Rs.3 lakh and thereafter it is stated that on the request made by the complainant, Shri. Harish Keer after consulting the Petitioner agreed for Rs.2 lakh, out of which Rs.40,000/-was accepted in cash and balance Rs.1,60,000/- was accepted by cheque which was to be returned after receipt of cash.

4. On 20th July 2017, the Petitioner filed his objections to the charges. With respect to Charge No.1, the Petitioner denied his association with Shri. Harish Keer. The Petitioner further submitted that the acquittal order was solely on merits. He denied any involvement in the said incident.

5. On 28th February 2018, the Respondent No.2 after perusing the charges and defence statement decided to drop Charge Nos.2 and 3. However, with respect to Charge No.1 it was decided to hold Departmental Enquiry. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and learned Adhoc District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri as the Presenting Officer. The copy of the said letter was sent to the Petitioner.

6. Pursuant to the above proceedings, statement of various witnesses were recorded. The Petitioner was also given an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses which was availed. After recording of the oral evidence, on 29th October 2018, the Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that Shri. Harish Keer demanded and accepted amount from the complainants, but it was not proved that the Petitioner was associated with him for the said purpose and the probability of instigation by other person to Shri. Harish Keer or on his own initiation cannot be ruled out, and therefore, the Petitioner is not found guilty of Charge No.1.

7. On 19th July 2019, the Respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the Petitioner informing him that the Disciplinary Authority did not accept the findings of the enquiry report, and therefore, the Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the grounds of disagreement with the enquiry report should not be accepted and the Petitioner should not held guilty of the Charge No.1 leveled against him. The Petitioner was not only furnished with the enquiry report but also the reasons of disagreement with enquiry report as record