ORDER

1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) Nos. 1243-1244 of 2003 and leave granted in both Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1241 of 2003 and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 1243-1244 of 2003.

2. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned final judgment of the Division Bench dated 22nd December, 1999 of the High Court of Bombay in the Writ Petitions filed by the two employees of the High Court of Bombay, who were dismissed from service. The appellants were working as senior translators in the Office of the Chief Translator of the High Court. In July, 1997 one Ms. Vasanti Joshi, who was practicing as an advocate in the Bombay Courts filed a complaint alleging that the translators working in the office of the Chief Translator had been indulging in corrupt practices and for obtaining official translation of the documents these translators had been demanding illegal gratification. Pursuant to the complaint, the High Court directed an inquiry by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of the High Court and he examined some of the witnesses and based on the information collected by the Prothonotary & Senior Master, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against these two appellants.

3. An Additional Registrar of the High Court was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The appellants were given opportunity to submit their written representations before the Enquiry Officer. The gist of allegation leveled against these two appellants was that Ms. Vasanti Joshi gave three documents in Marathi and one document in Gujarati for being translated into English and the appellants in both the appeals demanded a sum of Rs. 650/- and Rs. 350/- as bribe. The Enquiry Officer, after a detailed enquiry, found that these appellants were not guilty of the charge framed against them. The report was placed before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and came to the conclusion that these appellants were guilty of having demanded the illegal gratification from the complainant. A copy of the tentative decision was furnished to these appellants and they were asked to give explanation as to why the report given by the Enquiry Officer shall be accepted. Pursuant to that notice, the appellants herein gave a detailed explanation and they prayed that the report of the Enquiry Officer may be accepted and the proceedings be dropped against them. It may be mentioned that the appellants did not seek for a personal hearing at that juncture. After the receipt of the explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an order disagreeing with the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the copy of that order was furnished to the appellants and sought their explanation as to why they shall not be imposed with penalty of dismissal from service. The appellants again gave their explanation and the same was not accepted and they were removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed separate writ petitions and in the writ petitions the pleas raised by the appellants were not accepted by the court. However, the learned Advocate General, who appeared before the High Court of Bombay pointed out that the petitioners were entitled to file a review application against the imposition of penalty. The appellants thereafter filed a review application before the High Court and the same was dismissed on 28th March, 2000 by the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay. Aggrieved by the same, the impugned writ petitions were filed by the appellants, which were dismissed by the High Court, as stated earlier.

4. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned senior counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the appellants raised a plea that there was no evidence on record to hold that the appellants were guilty of having demanded illegal gratification from the complainant -Ms. Vasanti. We have gone through the evidence available on record and the findings of disciplinary au