R. S. GARG, RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by a Judicial Officer. The matter was filed in the year 1998 and it was placed before the learned Single Judge, who was pleased to issue Rule on 17. 11. 1998. However, thereafter, on a request being made by the learned advocate appearing for the Judicial Officers, the Honble the Chief Justice, by order dated 18. 3. 2004 directed the Registry to place the matters before a Division Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioner has consented to the hearing of the matter by the Division Bench.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, a Judicial Officer Civil Judge (Junior division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, was served with a charge sheet dated 28th March, 1989, containing the following charges :-"[i] That while working as Judicial Magistrate, F. C. (Railways), Surat, from 15. 6. 1988 to 23. 11. 88, you contacted one Makanbhai Jijalbhai an accused in Criminal Case No. 6510 of 1985 and to favour him in that case by accepting illegal gratification, you accepted from him two saris as illegal gratification. [ii] While working as such you further demanded from him and insisted that he should give you one Video Cassette Recorded by way of illegal gratification for showing him favour in the case. A departmental inquiry was held wherein, the Inquiry Officer held the charges proved in his report dated 13. 5. 1991. The High Court being the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice dated 8. 8. 1991, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner filed his reply dated 10. 2. 1992 to the show cause notice. The matter was considered by the available Committee of the High Court, the petitioner submitted his written arguments, the petitioner was also given an opportunity of personal hearing, duly assisted by his advocate. The Disciplinary Committee made its report, which according to the procedure, recommended by a Sub Committee by its report dated 5. 12. 1988 and accepted with modifications by the Full Court in Resolution No. 1, dated 26. 12. 1988, becomes the decision of the High Court on expiry of 48 hours after it is laid on the table, if the same is not objected to by any of the learned Judges. There being an objection, the matter was placed before the Full Court where it was decided that the matter be considered by the Standing Committee. The petitioner was informed of this by letter dated 6. 12. 1994. The Standing Committee heard the petitioner on 13. 12. 1994. Before the Standing Committee could record its conclusions, reshuffle took place on account of transfer of two of the Honble Judges and the elevation of the Honble the Chief Justice as the Judge of the Honble the Apex Court. The matter was then considered by the new Standing Committee. The petitioner was informed about this by letter dated 18. 11. 1995. He was accorded hearing by the new Committee on 5. 12. 1995. The Committee recorded its conclusions on the basis of which, the High Court decided to dismiss the petitioner as in the opinion of the High Court, charges levelled against the delinquent were grave. The order to dismiss the petitioner from service was forwarded to the Government of Gujarat, which, in turn, passed a resolution, dated 22nd March, 1996, bringing an end of the service of the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, is before this Court by way of this petition, challenging the same on the following amongst other grounds, which we shall take one by one:-3. 1 Mr. Supehia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that once the petitioner was heard by the Disciplinary Committee consisting of the two Honble Judges which to the knowledge of the petitioner, had come to a conclusion that the petitioner be exonerated of all the charges, there was no reason why the petitioner should have been heard by the Standing Committee on two different occasio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document