Judicial officers are required to maintain high standards of integrity, ethical firmness, and conduct. Disciplinary proceedings must be conducted lawfully, and the charges against the petitioner must be proved based on the materials available on record.

Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II, J.

1. The petitioner was selected by the Lok Sewa Ayog Uttar Pradesh and he joined as Judicial Officer (Munsif Magistrate) on 06.04.1981. The petitioner was promoted in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services on 15.05.2001 and posted as Additional District Judge. In June, 2009, the petitioner was transferred as Additional District Judge, Agra where he resumed his charge on 09.06.2009. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 03.08.2009 in contemplation of departmental enquiry and attached with the District and Sessions Judge, Etah. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 03.11.2009 on 10.11.2009 in which four charges were levelled against him. The first charge relates to demand of a car by the petitioner from a Police Inspector of Police Station Shahganj, District Agra and that he travelled in the said car from Agra to Vrindaban, Mathura, which was registered in the name of an accused involved in a murder case. The second charge relates to furnishing of a false information by the petitioner to the District Judge, Agra with ulterior motive as after taking permission to visit his home at Allahabad the petitioner visited to another place i.e. Vrindaban. The third charge relates to stay of petitioner in a private guest house after being transferred in Agra Judgeship in the month of June, 2009 even though he has been provided residence in Judges' Compound, Agra. The fourth charge relates to influence the judicial proceedings by the petitioner in some cases during his posting as Judicial Officer in Agra Judgeship.

2. With respect to the incident mentioned in charge Nos. 1 and 2, the District Judge, Agra sent a confidential report dated 21.07.2009 to the Administrative Judge stating therein that the incident, which was published in the various news papers, had received wide publication and pursuant to which on 20.07.2009 an exhaustive report was prepared after ascertaining the veracity of the news report and also about the identity of the said officer after a proper enquiry conducted by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate.

3. The Administrative Judge called the petitioner for probing the matter as to validate the facts of the confidential report forwarded by District Judge, Agra. Further, the Administrative Judge wrote a letter dated 23.07.2009 to Hon'ble the Chief Justice regarding the conduct of the petitioner. The letter dated 23.07.2009 was considered by the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 29.07.2009 and in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Administrative Committee the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 03.08.2009 in contemplation of departmental enquiry and attached with the District and Sessions Judge, Etah. The departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner and witnesses were examined. The petitioner was given opportunity to provide his written submission as well as to cross examine the witnesses. The petitioner submitted written statement to the charge sheet on 23.11.2009.

4. The enquiry was proceeded against the petitioner, who was served with a copy of the report of the Administrative Judge. Statement of the petitioner was taken on record on 12.03.2010 by way of cross-examination in the enquiry. The petitioner submitted his written argument before the Enquiry Judge on 25.03.2010. The petitioner was supplied copy of the enquiry report dated 18.05.2010.

5. In the enquiry proceedings charge Nos. 1 and 2 were proved against the petitioner and charge Nos. 3 and 4 were dropped. The petitioner preferred a representation dated 01.09.2010 against the said enquiry report and the same was placed before the Administrative Committee for consideration along with enquiry report. The Administrative Committee referred the matter to the Full Court for passing necessary order and the Full Court recommended the petitioner's dismissal from service. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition with the following re