A.M. Bujor Barua, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. During the relevant period, to which the allegations made against the appellant pertains to, the appellant was serving as a Deputy Registrar in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court. While the appellant was serving as the Deputy Registrar, an advertisement dated 19.03.2004 under the signature of the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court was issued for recruitment to 59 numbers of posts of Lower Division Assistant. Around 2300 applications were received pursuant to such advertisement and the written test was held on 04.07.2004. On the basis of the result of the written test, 597 numbers of candidates qualified for the viva-voce and accordingly call letters for the viva-voce were issued by registered post, which was held on 11th, 12th, 18th, 19th and 25th September, 2004. The 597 candidates, who had qualified for the viva-voce, were divided into five batches of approximately 120 candidates each and the five batches were accordingly subjected to viva-voce on the aforesaid five dates. The list of the 597 candidates was arranged in the alphabetical order for the purpose of viva-voce. The result of the viva-voce was announced on 02.12.2004. As per the declared results, 40(forty) candidates were selected for appointment, although the notified vacancies as per the advertisement were 59 (fifty nine).

3. By the order of the Registry dated 09.09.2004, the appellant was required to attend duties on the scheduled dates for the viva-voce and one of the entrusted duty was to make the sitting arrangement of the candidates in the High Court building on the aforesaid dates.

4. Before the final results of the selection procedure was declared, the Registry of the High Court had received certain reports that some of the candidates, who had appeared in the viva-voce were approached by certain persons with an offer of being selected against payment of monetary consideration. Accordingly, on the direction of the Registrar (I&E), a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the then Deputy Registrar (I&E) and a Report was submitted on 04.01.2005.

5. As per the Report of 04.01.2005, the statements of some of the candidates, who were apparently approached by certain persons, were recorded and the statements of the said candidates were also included in the report. As per the Report, one of the candidate namely, Suprativ Lal Baruah had mentioned the name of one Rituraj Barman, while another candidate Rituparna Das mentioned the name of one Dhiraj Barman and Bhusan Kalita to be the persons who had approached them with the offer of appointment against payment of money. Rituparna Das also stated that Dhiraj Barman and Bhushan Kalita were working in the establishment of the High Court and the District Judge, Kamrup and he can identify the two persons. Rituparna Das had also given the mobile phone number 9435044030, which was said to have been given to him by Dhiraj Barman in order to enable the candidate to contact him. The Report also states that when the enquiring Deputy Registrar (I&E) had personally called the aforesaid mobile phone number, it could be ascertained that it was the phone number of Dhiraj Barman, who was working in the establishment of the District Judge, Kamrup. Further, a photograph of Dhiraj Barman, when shown to Rituparna Das, the candidate readily identified the photograph to be of Dhiraj Barman.

6. The aforesaid Report of the Deputy Registrar (I&E) was placed before the two Hon'ble Judges who were involved in the selection procedure, and thereafter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Upon being so placed, the Report of the Deputy Registrar (I&E) was converted to a writ petition being WP(C) No.87/2005. By the order dated 10.01.2005, this Court on the judicial side had directed the CBI to register a case, investigate the matter and submit a report w