Rules of evidence are not to be applied strictly in domestic enquiry.

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.995, Public (Spe-cial-A) Department, dated 19. 1996 dismissing him from service, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.

.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he was directly appointed as District and Sessions Judge Grade-II under G.O.Ms.No.1129, dated 27. 1987. After completion of probation and training, he was posted as First Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tirunelveli on 11. 1989. While he was working as First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, he disposed off a Civil Appeal in A.S.No.40 of 1988 and a Sessions case in S.C.No.105 of 1987 among other civil appeals and other sessions cases. Aggrieved by his judgment in A.S.No.40 of 1988, one Kunammal lodged a complaint against him as if he demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000 to render a favourable judgment and since she did not pay the said sum, he dismissed her appeal. Likewise being aggrieved by his judgment and sentence, one of the accused in S.C.No.105 of 1.987, namely, Laser made a complaint that as if he demanded a sum of Rs.25,000 for acquitting all the accused and only a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid by one of the accused Laser and since he failed to pay the balance of Rs. 15,000 he convicted all the accused for life. Thereafter, an official memorandum was issued by the second respondent on 30.7.1992 asking him to submit his explanation in respect of certain allegations. He submitted his explanation denying all the allegations, however, without considering his explanation, a charge Memo was issued on 3. 1993 levelling five charges against him. On receipt of the charge Memo, he submitted his explanation on 26. 1993 and also submitted an additional written statement on 22. 1994. Since every action against the Judicial Officer is to be taken only by the Full Court, a fresh decision was taken by the Administrative committee appointed by the Full Court and the said committee issued a fresh charge Memo on 38. 1994. To the fresh charge Memo dated 38. 1994, which is a repetition of the earlier charge Memo dated 1. 1993, he submitted his explanation on 310. 1994. Later on, the matter was enquired by Hon’ble Judges of this Court. After enquiry, the Hon’ble Enquiring Judges held charges 1 and 2 alone were proved and other charges namely, charges 3 to 5 were not proved. The enquiry report was forwarded to him on 12. 1996 and along with the enquiry report he was to submit his further representation within 2 weeks as to why the findings recorded should not be accepted and penalty as per rules imposed. It is further stated that because of certain personal problems particularly, due to his wifes illness, he requested more time for submission of his reply. On 17. 1996 he received another memo basing on the report of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur as if he had made false representation for not filing the written statement within the time granted. Without granting further time, merely on the basis of the incorrect report of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, the Administrative Committee I even on 24. 1996 decided to accept the findings of the Enquiring Judges and the matter was placed before the Full Court on 28. 1996 and the full Court also accepted the views of the Adminis- trative Committee I and the matter was forwarded to the first respondent. The first respondent has since passed the order of dismissal accepting the recommendation of the High Court and the order dismissing him from service was issued in G.O.Ms.No.995 of Public (Special-A) Department, dated 19. 1996 and he is challenging the said proceedings in this writ petition.

.3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent-Registrar High Court, Madras wherein it is stated that the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras conducted a detailed enquiry on the allegations of corruption ma