The judgment emphasizes the need for integrity and probity in judicial officers, highlighting that judicial officers should possess the sterling quality of integrity and that impeccable integrity should be reflected in both public and personal life.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of departmental enquiry concern in the case of the petitioner which led to the passing of the order dated 12.05.2015.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order No. 4407/1352/XXI-B/C.G./15 dated 12.05.2015 passed by Government of Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Mantralaya, Raipur, and order no 8450/ Comp./2015 dated 16/October/2015, in the interest of justice

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to reinstate the petitioner back in judicial service, in the interest of justice.

10.4 Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving under the respondents as a member of judicial service. The petitioner was lastly posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate Dantewada (C.G.). During the service of the petitioner, when he was serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate Dantewada, Bastar (C.G.) a written complaint was made by unknown person against the petitioner to the respondent no. 2. Pursuant to the above unnamed written complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the then District & Session Judge Dantewada Baatar (CCG) and the preliminary enquiry report was submitted before the respondent no. 2. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under auspension and the charges were framed against the petitioner alleging some misconduct while working in Judicial capacity on complaint lodged against the petitioner by an unknown person on 01.02.2013 alleging that while the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dantewada on 10.12.2012, the competent authority and sub divisional Forest Officer Dantewada seized number of vehicles but the petitioner during the tenure of posting as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dantewada, when application for release of number of vehicles on supurdnama was filed before the court of the petitioner which was also opposed by the prosecution on the ground that intimation for initiation of confiscation proceeding has been sent by the competent authority but by ignoring the aforesaid intimation and legal provision the petitioner released the vehicle contrary to the law in order to extend undue favor/ extraneous consideration and thereby committed grave misconduct. In addition allegation of receiving huge amount as illegal gratification and release of sale amount of the confiscate teak wood to 3 different persons is also charged with. After the charges were framed against the petitioner and the relevant documents and list of witnesses were supplied, the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 03.12.2013 denying the charges leveled against him and prayed for personal hearing. During the course of departmental enquiry, 4 witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner. Thereafter no witnesses were examined from the petitioner's side and the proceeding was closed for final hearing. The petitioner filed a written argument on 21.04.2014 which was taken on record. Lastly the enquiry report dated 24.04.2014 was submitted before the respondent no. 2 for its further consideration by the enquiry officer i.e. the then District & Session Judge Bastar and Jagdalpur. The complete departmental enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer enclosed with the enquiry report dated 24.04.2014 was considered by the respondent no 2 and after consideration the respondent no 2 had directed to issue show cause to the petitioner as to why major punishment of dismissal from service under Clause (IX) of Rule 10 of The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) rules 1966 may not be imposed upon the petitioner, calling reply of the same within 15 days of its receipt. The petitioner filed his detailed reply to th