JUDGMENT :

Mohit S. Shah

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 26.03.2007 of the State Government withholding the petitioner's pension with permanent effect on the basis of the order dated 27.12.2006 of the High Court on the administrative side on the ground that the petitioner had committed misconduct while working as Civil Judge (J.D.) and JMFC at Muli " Sayla. The aforesaid order was passed by the High Court after holding a departmental inquiry.

2. The facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated, are as under :-

The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class on 14.06.1982. Upon attaining the age of superannuation i.e. after completion of 58 years on 30.04.2004, the petitioner retired from service. However, long prior to his retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.09.1995 and charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 31.01.1996. The gravamen of the charge in the departmental inquiry was that the petitioner had indulged in corrupt practices as a Judicial Officer. The charge-sheet contained charges in respect of the following acts of misconduct :-

"(1) On 15.1.1993, the petitioner accepted Rs. 200/- through Mr KG Parmar in Criminal Case No.320/92 for imposing nominal sentence i.e. TRC/ Rs. 100/-.

(2) On 22.1.1993, the petitioner accepted Rs. 400/- through Mr Jayeshbhai Shah in Criminal Case No.65/92 for imposing nominal sentence i.e. TRC & Rs. 100/-

(3) On 22.1.1993 the petitioner accepted Rs. 800/- through Mr KG Parmar in Criminal Case No.16/93 for imposing nominal sentence i.e. TRC & Rs. 100/-.

(4) On 24.1.1993 the petitioner accepted bribe through advocate Rajubhai in NC Case Nos.126/92 and 191/90.

(5) On 1.1.1993 the petitioner accepted bribe from advocate Mr KG Parmar and disposed of NC Case No.1/93.

(6) On 16.1.1993 the petitioner accepted bribe from Mr KG Parmar and disposed of NC Case No.135/92.

(7) On 11.3.1993, the petitioner demanded money from Francis Peter David accused of Criminal Case No.33/93 and on his refusal to understand, the delinquent imposed penalty of Rs. 2000/- for offence punishable under section 279 etc. whereas in Criminal Case No.68/93 on the very same day imposed penalty of Rs. 100/- collecting Rs. 800/- from the accused."

3. After holding the departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted report dated 13.01.2000 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved and that the petitioner be exonerated from all the charges. The matter thereafter came to be considered by the High Court on the administrative side. Ordinarily, it would not have been necessary to refer to the composition of the Disciplinary Committee, but since the matter came to be considered by several Disciplinary Committees for the reasons indicated hereinafter, we would make a reference to the composition of the Disciplinary Committees :-

4. When the matter came to be considered by the First Disciplinary Committee, by order dated 04.06.2001, the Committee observed that the Committee was unable to agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. The Committee also observed that the philosophy propounded by the Inquiry Officer appeared to be his personal philosophy and the inquiry officer had overlooked the principle that in a domestic inquiry, charges are not to be proved against the delinquent beyond all reasonable doubt as in a criminal case and that preponderance of probabilities has to be taken into account. The Committee examined the allegations against the deli