B.D. AGARWAL, J

1. The writ Petitioner, a judicial officer, is challenging his removal from Assam Judicial Service vide impugned order dated 11.10.2001, in the back-drop of the following observations given by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 396

2. The recommendation of the High Court on the basis of which the Appellant, who held the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge, was compulsorily retired from service, exhibits the tragic fact that the highest judicial body of the State which abhors anything done contrary to the rule of law or done in a whimsical manner or arbitrarily, can itself act in that manner on the administrative side. Still, the plea that High Court Judges suffer from a "split personality" cannot be accepted for the pleasant fact that though on the administrative side, they might have had acted as ordinary bureaucrats, once they don the robes, they forget all their previous associations and connections. The transformation is so complete and real that even though they themselves were part of the decision-making process, they quash their own administrative decisions in exercise of their power of judicial review and, thus, maintain the majesty and independence of the Indian judiciary in which the people have always reposed tremendous faith....

2. We have heard Shri A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the writ Petitioner and Shri S.S. Dey, learned standing counsel for the Gauhati High Court. Though State of Assam (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) have filed their affidavit but none appeared to advance their oral argument to substantiate the impugned removal order dated 11.1.2002 as well as the impugned order of the appellate authority dated 17.6.2004, dismissing the appeal. We have also perused the averments made in the writ petition and the affidavits of the Respondents as well as the documents appended therewith. We have also scanned the records of the disciplinary proceeding.

3. Before embarking on the issues raised in the writ petition, it would be just and apposite to give a gist of the facts leading to initiation of domestic enquiry and culminating in the removal of the writ Petitioner from service.

3.1 At the relevant time the Petitioner was serving as Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Sarupathar in the District of Golaghat (Assam). Title Suit No. 12 of 1996 was in the file of the Petitioner. On 11.6.1999, a written complaint was received by the High Court form one Siblal Sarmah (son of Smt. Pabitra Sarma), Defendant in the said suit, alleging that the Petitioner had solicited a sum of Rs. 5,000 in order to render the judgment in their favour and accordingly the said payment was made and despite that the decree was passed in favour of the Plaintiff. As could be gathered from the record, the gratification amount was paid on 19.3.1999 and the judgment was passed on 6.5.1999. Having felt cheated, the complainant went to the office of the Petitioner on 10.5.1999 and demanded back Rs. 5,000, allegedly paid to him. However, instead of refunding the money the officer lodged an FIR under Sections 448, 353 and 506 of the IPC, being Sarupathar P.S. Case No. 30 of 1990 and the complainant was taken into custody. On the next day, i.e., on 11.5.1999, the complainant was produced before the writ Petitioner, who remanded him to judicial custody. After his release from the judicial custody, the complaint was submitted to the High Court on 11.6.1999.

3.2 On receipt of the complaint the High Court thought it proper to make a preliminary enquiry through the District Judge, to ascertain whether there was any substance in the allegations. Accordingly, the District Judge, Golaghat recorded the statements of the complainant, his mother and brother, Sheristadar and one peon of the office of the Judicial Officer and two more persons. After collecting the evidence the report was submitted by the District Judge to the High Court vide his