Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The third respondent in the Writ Petition, the High Court of Kerala, represented by its Registrar, is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following:

The 1st respondent, while working as Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad, was suspended from service on 12.2.1994, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It appears, the suspension was preceded by certain preliminary enquiries held by the High Court through its Vigilance Wing The preliminary enquiry against him was held based on a report filed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, who noticed some irregularities committed by the 1st respondent. Later, the 1st respondent was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges on 5.3.1994. The allegations in Ext.P1 memo were to the effect that he tampered with the depositions of PWs.3, 4 and 7 in C.C.No.73/1991, a case tried by him, so as to help the accused. The 1st respondent submitted Ext.P2 reply to the said charge- sheet. He admitted the existence of tampering in the depositions, but contended that he was not responsible for it. Later, he was served with Ext.P3 memo of charges dated 26.10.1994. The allegations against him in the said memo of charges were more or less identical to those in Ext.P1. Those charges related to C.C.No.225/91, which was tried by him. The 1st respondent submitted Ext.P4 reply, not disputing the existence of the irregularity, but denying his involvement in it. The High Court found the replies of the 1st respondent not satisfactory and therefore, the Additional District Judge, Palakkad was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the charges. The learned Additional District Judge, after holding enquiry, submitted Exts.P7 and P8 reports, wherein the 1st respondent was held to be guilty for making the tampering/corrections. The Administrative Committee of the High Court, which considered the enquiry reports, decided to accept them. It was also tentatively decided to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, Ext.P9 show cause notice dated 5.8.1996 was issued to him, calling upon him to show cause why the said penalty should not be imposed on him. Along with Ext.P9, copies of the enquiry reports were also furnished to him. The 1st respondent submitted Ext.P10 reply. In that reply, he has dealt with the findings in the enquiry against him and pleaded that they are not based on the evidence on record and therefore, should not be made the basis for the action against him. He also pleaded that the imposition of the proposed penalty was not warranted. The Administrative Committee considered Ext.P10 reply of the 1st respondent and decided to reject it. It was also decided to dismiss him from service. When the matter was placed before the Full Court, the decision of the Administrative Committee was approved with a modification that the punishment shall be removal from service. Thereafter, the Registrar of this Court addressed the Government by letter dated 21.5.1997, requesting to remove the 1st respondent from service. The Government, by Ext.P11 order dated 14.8.1997, accepted the recommendation of this Court and removed the 1st respondent from service with effect from the date of his suspension. The 1st respondent, thereupon, filed Ext.P12 review petition on 28.10.1997, praying to review Ext.P11. The Government considered the review petition and forwarded Ext.P13 note to the High Court, suggesting that the punishment is liable to be reviewed, according to it. The Administrative Committee of the High Court considered the matter first and thereafter, a Sub Committee of Judges was appointed to look into the matter and still later, based on the report of the sub-committee, the matter was considered by the Full Court and Ext.R3(a) note was sent to the Government, recommending to dismiss the review petition. The Government accepted the views of the High Court and by Ext.P14 order, dismissed