Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, the learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Harsh Singh, for the petitioner, a Judicial Officer, Mr. Piyush Lall for the High Court and Mr. Suman Kumar Jha for the State.

2. The writ petitioner/Judicial Officer, while being posted as Sub Judge XIV-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna in the year 2016, passed a judgment of acquittal in a case instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (in short the N.I. Act), which led to the setting up of a departmental proceeding against her for having acquitted the accused for extraneous consideration and not relying on the materials on record for coming to her conclusion.

3. The departmental proceeding ended in the inquiry authority having concluded a serious lapse on the part of the proceedee, which was indicative of no proper verification or consideration of records/evidence, implying grave negligence and, in turn, leading to the only inference of not having shown absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The officer was found to have depicted lack of judicial fairness which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer which conclusion was accepted by the disciplinary authority and she was subjected to the penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 11 (ix) contained in Part-V of the Bihar Judicial Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2020.

4. The afore-noted decision of the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the Standing Committee of the Patna High Court.

5. We have examined the judgment delivered by the proceedee in Complaint Case No. 2163(c) of 2012.

6. The Officer has concluded the case by saying that only two witnesses on behalf of the complainant was examined, both of whom were the Supervisors of the company, which was the aggrieved party. The complainant had not examined himself. The return memo and the Advocate’s notice were not produced by the complainant. The Officer, thereafter, inferred that no case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act could be established and, ultimately, acquitted the accused.

7. Nothing has been stated either by the High Court or by the proceedee whether the judgment delivered by her was subjected to any challenge before the superior forum; nonetheless, it would be apposite to examine the charge levelled against the petitioner.

8. The sole article of charge against the petitioner reads that she, in collusion with the accused person, passed the judgment dated 26.08.2017, acquitting him on the ground of absence of sufficient evidence while holding that the complainant did not adduce his evidence nor produced the cheque return memo nor the pleader’s notice on the record nor got them exhibited, though the bankers’ cheque bearing No. 008698 dated 10.01.2012, of Rupees One Lakh, SBI Memo dated 25.06.2012, informing the return of the aforesaid cheque and legal notice in the matter dated 02.07.2012 and registered postal receipt were on record, which were marked as Exhibits-1 to 4 respectively vide the Court’s order dated 30.01.2017. This act, the charge reads, was indicative of lack of absolute integrity, devotion to duty and judicial fairness and appears to be based on extraneous consideration which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.

9. The afore-noted charge was supported by statement of allegation that in the afore-noted complaint case, oral and documentary evidence were produced and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. All the necessary documents, in support of the prosecution, was also brought on record along with the article of charge; the list of documents furnished contained the records of Complaint Case No. 2163(c) of 2012 and the allegation petition dated 17.11.2017 filed by one Mr. Shobhapate Brahmotra, an Advocate of Civil Courts, Patna. Four witnesses were also cited including the two witnesses who have been examined in the case.

10. The Enquiry Officer examined three witnesses, namely, the Advocate through whom the complaint case was filed and two of the witnesses in