Errors of law or judgment in judicial proceedings do not necessarily constitute misconduct, and caution and scrutiny are required when initiating disciplinary proceedings against officers performing judicial functions.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of removal dated 11. 7. 1997, Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take the petitioner in service without any interruption or break and further to pay all the benefits as admissible under Rules.

( 2 ) AFFIDAVITS have been exchanged and we have heard Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a direct recruit to Higher Judicial Service and he joined the service on 7. 12. 1986. From June. 1991 till May 31, 1994, the petitioner was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Budaun. At Budaun he performed the duties of Incharge District Judge from September, 1992 till June 1, 1993. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of police, Budaun, made complaints against the petitioner. The District Judge called for comments of the petitioner which was submitted by him. The District Judge reported his observations on the complaint. The then Inspecting Judge recommended that regular disciplinary enquiry be instituted against the petitioner on 2. 6. 1995. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 4. 11. 1995. The charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 10. 4. 1996 and six charges were levelled against him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. The inquiry Judge submitted her report on 8. 10. 1996 and held the petitioner guilty of the charges No. 2, 3, 4 and 5. He was exonerated from the charges No. 1 and 6. The Inquiry Judges recommendations were placed before the Administrative Committee and before the full court which recommended for punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. The respondent no. 1 accepted the recommendations and passed the order of removal on 11. 7. 1997, which is impugned in this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE charges No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 pertain to grant of ball in four cases. The finding of the Inquiry judge regarding grant of bait on charge No. 2 Is that the reasons recorded in the bail order are not at all convincing and that bail order is not a judicious order and, therefore. It is improper. It has further been held that so far as the motive for granting this improper bail is concerned, the district Judge in his, report has opined that there is no evidence against this order regarding illegal gratification and bribe, etc. The Inquiry Judge has further found that bail has been granted improperly to all the three accused in this case. If it is not for illegal gratification, it could be for favouring the said accused. It cannot, therefore, be said that the charge against the petitioner is without any basis. On the third charge, the finding is that there is no doubt that the delinquent officer has granted bail most improperly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the order is wholly perverse. On charge No, 4, the Inquiry Judge has found that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . there was absolutely no justification for grant of ball in the facts and circumstances of this case. Regarding the motive behind the grant of bail, it is not possible to allege illegal gratification in the absence of any positive proof. However, the conclusion that bail was granted to bestow favour on the accused is inescapable. On charge No. 5 the Inquiry Judge has found that to allow the third application was, in fact, unwarranted. The profit and motive theory taken into consideration at this stage shows total lack of understanding of criminal law. Some kind of extraneous consideration for granting bail in this manner cannot be ruled out. The grant of bail to above accused is, therefore, most improper.

( 5 ) THE Inquiry Judge in her report has mentioned that on the question of allegations