JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J. - A Judicial Officer selected as Judicial Magistrate in 1962 confirmed in 19o7 approached this Court for quashing of disciplinary proceedings and the inquiry report and in alternative for direction to State Government not to accept recommendation of this Court tor removing him from service Since during pendency of this petition the recommendation was accepted and petitioner was removed from service in 1982 he challenged the removal order by an amendment application which was allowed. 2. In 1975 while petitioner was posted at Sultanpur differences arose between him and District Judge resulting in his transfer. Against transfer order petitioner approached this court by way of writ petition which was dismissed limine. In the meantime the District Judge gave him adverse entry for 1975-76 against which petitioners representation was allowed in part. But since he had not handed over charge when he was transferred from Sultanpur and even when he gave charge it was not proper, he was given censure entry by this court. 11 May, 1977 petitioner filed an application for reviewing the order rejecting his representation for expunction of adverse entry for 1975-76 in full. This was rejected and a show-cause notice was given as to why another censure entry may not be awarded to him for making unwarranted allegations against the Administrative Judge in his review application. The petitioner tendered apology and the court taking lenient view did not take any action. But the things did not stop. And petitioner filed a writ petition against the order rejecting his review petition which again was dismissed at the admission stage. Another petition was tiled against award of censure entry which too was rejected summarily. Against these orders in last two petitions the petitioner approached Supreme Court by way of special leave petition. In these petitions allegations were made against the Chief Justice, which were denied in the counter-affidavit but were reiterated in rejoinder affidavit. Ultimately petitions were dismissed as withdrawn leaving it open to petitioner to make representation to this court, on administrative side regarding withholding of increments and crossing of efficiency bar. According to petitioner he got his leave petition dismissed as withdrawn because he had been promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. Ultimately petitions were dismissed as withdrawn leaving it open to petitioner to make representation to this court, on administrative side regarding withholding of increments and crossing of efficiency bar. According to petitioner he got his leave petition dismissed as withdrawn because he had been promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. After three proceedings came to an end the Joint Registrar of this court submitted a note to the Chief Justice that as the court had been taking lenient view the petitioner became indiscreet and insubordination and indiscipline increased. He, therefore, proposed for taking action against him to curb growing indiscipline amongst members of subordinate judiciary. This was directed by the Chief Justice to be placed before Administrative Committee which passed a resolution on 8th December, 1979 for initiating disciplinary proceedings and appointed a Judge of this court as inquiry officer authorising him to frame charges, conduct enquiry and submit report. The inquiry officer initiated proceedings under Rule 3(2) of the U. P. Government Servants conduct Rules read with Rule 49 of U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and framed two charges which read as under : "Firstly, that in the year, 1975 you filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1576 of 1978, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court on 20-2-1978 against which you filed a Special Leave Petition No. 4584 of 1978 and in para 12 thereof you knowingly made a false allegation against Honble Mr. Satish Chandra, at present the Chief Justice of this Court, in the following words : He has developed personal animosity against the petitioner as the latter refused to toe his dictates inasmuch as the respondent No. 2 had desired the petitioner to give a favourable judgment in a case and as the petitioner refused to do so, the respondent No. 2 turned against the petitioner and went to the except of giving adverse entries for a period for which he was not entitled to write his (petitioners) confidential report." And thereby you committed an act of gross misbehaviour and indiscipline indictable under Rule 3(2) of the U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules read with Rule 49 of the U. P. C. S. (C. C. A.) Rules. Secondly, that you filed a Writ Petition No. 2931 of 1975 in the Lucknow Bench of this court and in para 25 thereof you knowingly made a false allegation against Honble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra at present the Chief Justice of this Court, in the following words. "The Honble Administrative Judge further asked the petitioner to with drawl the said note, dated 27th of August, 1975 (Annexure-II) and intimate the fact of withdrawal to His Lordship through the learned District Judge, Sultanpur, before 15-9-1975 prior to the departure of His Lordship for tour." And that in another Writ Petition No. 2057 of 197.5 filed by you in this court you repeated the same false allegation in para 19 thereof against Honble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra, at present the Chief Justice of this court, in the following words : "That the Opposite Party No. 3 (the Chief Justice) had asked the petitioner on 9-9-1978 when the petitioner had called on him in connection with transfer of the petitioner from Sultanpur to Karvi, Banda to with drawl the aforesaid note, dated 27-8-1975 (Annexure-F) before 15-9-1975." And further that when you filed Special Leave Petition No. 4238 of 1978 in the Supreme Court against the order by which the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 2931 of 1975 was dismissed, you once again repeated the aforesaid false allegation in para 16 of the special leave petition. And you thereby repeatedly committed acts of gross misbehaviour and indiscipline, indictable under Rule 3(2) of U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules read with Rule 49 of U. P. C. S. (C. GA.) Rules." 4. The charge-sheet was served on petitioner, in February, 1980 requiring him to file his written statement on or before 25th March, 1980 and further requiring him to inform whether he desired to be heard in person and if he desired to examine or cross-examine any witness. To this reply was sent by petitioner stating that evidence of the Chief Justice and Registrar referred to in charge-sheet dated 5th February, I9fc0 had not been furnished to him, therefore, it may be furnished to him to enable him to file his written statement. To this reply was sent by petitioner stating that evidence of the Chief Justice and Registrar referred to in charge-sheet dated 5th February, I9fc0 had not been furnished to him, therefore, it may be furnished to him to enable him to file his written statement. According to petitioner copies were not furnished and he sought interview with Inquiry Officer in which he got an impression that the Chief Justice and other members of the Administrative Committee were very much displeased with him, and in case he challenged the correctness of the evidence of the Chief Justice he was bound to be removed from service. According to him Inquiry Officer suggested to petitioner that as he was bound to be held guilty, he should no contest and express regret which might result in minor punishment. Therefore, after interview he sent his statement dated 5th March, 1980 throwing himself at the mercy of this court and expressing unqualified regret. On 21st March, 1980 the Inquiry Officer sent another letter to petitioner that as he had not admitted his guilt there was no option but to proceed with inquiry to which letter was sent by petitioner on 26th August, 1981 reiterating his earlier request for supply of copies of relevant documents mentioned therein. According to him it was not done and ex parte enquiry was held against him, copy of which was supplied to him in October, 1981, to which he submitted representation on 14th December, 1981 for reconsideration of the matter and for affording opportunity to substantiate his allegations but no action was taken and he was informed by Registrar that the representation made by him had been filed. On basis of inquiry report submitted this court recommended that the petitioner should be removed from service which was accepted by Government. In counter-affidavit it is averred that when petitioner appeared in personal interview it was explained to him that no statement had been recorded as yet and that the same shall be done in his presence. He was further assured that he shall have full right to cross-examine. But the petitioner did not file any written statement rather by his letter, dated 5th March, 1980 he candidly admitted correctness of the evidence with regard to the charges levelled against him. He was further assured that he shall have full right to cross-examine. But the petitioner did not file any written statement rather by his letter, dated 5th March, 1980 he candidly admitted correctness of the evidence with regard to the charges levelled against him. As petitioner did not file any written statement and his letter according to iuquiry officer; did not amount to admission of guilt the inquiry officer sent another letter on 21st March, 1980 directing Registrar to inform petitioner asking him whether he accepted that allegations made in leave petition were false and further that if no reply was received by 7th April, 1980 the recording of evidence shall commence in his chamber on 12th April, 1980. But no reply was received even though the letter was served on petitioner. Consequently statements of the Chief Justice and Registrar were recorded on 12th April, 1980. The Inquiry Officer after perusing statements referred above and material on record was of the opinion that allegations which were subject of charge-sheet were made deliberately and with fond hope to get the petition admitted in Supreme Court. He observed that apart from denied by the Chief Justice of any bias or animosity against petitioner it was established both from statements and record that adverse entry had been given to petitioner not by the Chief Justice when he was Administrative Judge but by another Administrative Judge. 5. Various submissions advanced by learned Counsel for petitioner may now be examined to find out if removal order, suffers from any error of law or was passed in violation of any rule or procedure or was vitiated because of mala fide or was contrary to principle of natural justice. The learned Counsel submitted that once Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to with drawl special leave petition the allegations made therein which were the subject-matter of charge-sheet stood automatically deleted and, therefore, no action could be taken on it. According to learned Counsel on to court allows a suit or with drawl his claim the legal effect of it is the rendering of entire proceedings nonest. And that which could not exist in eye of law could not furnish material for taking any action. The argument is without any merit. No provision in the rules either this court or Supreme Court permitting with draw of petition and its effect had been brought to notice. And that which could not exist in eye of law could not furnish material for taking any action. The argument is without any merit. No provision in the rules either this court or Supreme Court permitting with draw of petition and its effect had been brought to notice. Nor was it supported by any judicial pronouncement. The law in respect of with drawl of suit or proceedings is contained in Order XXIII of Civil Procedure Code. If with drawl is unconditional it acts as bar for filing fresh suit on same cause of action. If the proceedings became nonest as argued now could they debar fresh suit. Even otherwise it does not stand to reason that with draw results in rendering all proceedings as nonest. For instance a claim may be permitted to be withdrawn in appeal. Can it men that statements made in the proceedings, the admission contained therein all ceases to exist. The answer has to be in negative. The only effect of with drawl is that there is no adjudication on merits. Nor that it results in wiping off the proceedings etc. 6 Learned Counsel then urged that once this court promoted petitioner on administrative side it resulted in washing out every thing which stood against him till that date and, therefore, allegations made by him could not furnish material tor initiating disciplinary proceedings. Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v Dewan Chunni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2086 Learned Counsel submitted that petitioner had been agisting against adverse CD try and entry censuring him for not giving charge on transfer but once he was promoted in May, 1979 his grievance came to an end and he did not want to pursue the matter further. Therefore, he got his petition dismissed as withdrawn. According to learned Counsel as petitioner was promoted then all adverse entries etc., stood wiped off. Consequently any allegation made in writ petition or special leave petition to challenge the entry could not furnish foundation for any action against petitioner much less disciplinary proceedings. The argument to say the least is devoid of any substance. According to learned Counsel as petitioner was promoted then all adverse entries etc., stood wiped off. Consequently any allegation made in writ petition or special leave petition to challenge the entry could not furnish foundation for any action against petitioner much less disciplinary proceedings. The argument to say the least is devoid of any substance. It is not only common but usual in service that if an adverse entry or any remark is given to any officer and thereafter he earns good entries subsequent years, say for two years or three years depending on rule or practice then the department while considering his case for promotion or efficiency bar etc. ignores the earlier entries in view of subsequent good entries. In other words earning of subsequent good entries minimises effect of bad entry awarded in earlier years and that is what happened in case of petitioner The entry was for 1975-76 He was promoted in ly79 that is after three years. From the record it is clear that subsequent entries were good. On practice followed by this court on the Administrative side of ignoring an adverse entry while considering his case for promotion if he had earned at times two or three good entries depending on exigency of situation the petitioners promotion could not be withheld. And then what is the corelation between promotion and wild or unwarranted allegations in petitions. Cause of action for disciplinary proceedings on false allegations had noting to do with petitioners promotion. Even assuming that the effect of promotion was to wipe off adverse entry or censure entry awarded to petitioner how could it result in wiping off irresponsible allegations made by the petitioner in special leave petition. The giving of promotion and taking action on allegations made in special leave petition are entirely different. First is incidence of service whereas second is associated with irresponsible behaviour. In Dewan Churwi Lal's case (supra) he was charge-sheeted for inefficiency in 1941. It was held by Honble Court that as the officer was permitted to cross efficiency bar in 1944 it was obvious that no serious view was taken of entry in 1941. This case cannot be held as charge-sheet is not on adverse or censure entry but on altogether different allegations. It was held by Honble Court that as the officer was permitted to cross efficiency bar in 1944 it was obvious that no serious view was taken of entry in 1941. This case cannot be held as charge-sheet is not on adverse or censure entry but on altogether different allegations. And then as pointed out earlier if an officer earns two or three good entries the practice adopted by this court is to ignore the earlier entry lot promotion or even efficiency bar. 7. Disciplinary proceedings were then described as vitiated for failure to afford reasonable opportunity of defending. While narrating facts it has been seen that the Inquiry Officer was not only fair to petitioner but more than that as despite letter, dated 8th March, 1980 informing him that he did not propose to file any written statement and threw himself at the mercy of the court he informed him again either to admit guilt or appear and cross examine learned Counsel submitted that although second opportunity under Article 311(2) has been done away with but it must be held to impliedly still operating. According to him where penalty or punishment is not indicated then second opportunity should be given even it there is no provision on principle of natural justice. Suffice it to mention that argument is inherently untenable. The Constitution guarantees of affording second opportunity having been withdrawn it cannot be restored by court on principle of natural justice. 8. Another submission advanced was that order was against principle of natural justice. It was urged that proceedings had been started against petitioner on certain complaint but its copy was not supplied to petitioner. Nor was he supplied statement of witnesses recorded at preliminary enquiry or the resolution of the Administrative Committee. It was also urged that statements of the Chief Justice and Registrar recorded during inquiry were not supplied to petitioner to enable him to represent against punishment. It was pointed out that inquiry report was supplied to petitioner in October, 1981 much after this court had recommended against which seriously prejudiced him and was in fact denial of reasonable opportunity and breach of natural justice. Factually none of these are correct. There was no complaint against petitioner but a report by the Joint Registrar that the allegation made in leave petition manifested indiscipline. Factually none of these are correct. There was no complaint against petitioner but a report by the Joint Registrar that the allegation made in leave petition manifested indiscipline. The proceedings started against the petitioner not because of any preliminary inquiry but on report of Joint Registrar. No copy was required to be supplied to petitioner as the inquiry officer did not propose to rely on it. Even when the petitioner sent the letter on 27th February, 1982 he did not demand it. Nor was any statement recorded in preliminary inquiry. When petitioner by his letter, dated 27th February, 1980 demanded statements of the Chief Justice and Registrar he was informed that those statements shall be recorded in his presence with full opportunity to cross-examine. As regards non-supply of statements of these witnesses after inquiry it may be mentioned that as petitioner had no second opportunity it was not necessary to serve it on him. Moreover it is faithfully noted in the inquiry report. It was not required to be supplied to petitioner to enable him to make any representation either before the Administrative Committee or full court. Not only this not a word has been suggested as to how all or any of these caused any prejudice to petitioner. He himself did not appear, rather stated that he did not want to challenge the statement of the Chief Justice and threw himself at mercy of the court. Nor there is any merit in the submission that non-examination of the District Judge Sultanpur or the officer who was Registrar at the relevant time was fatal as gravamen of charge was making false allegation in special leave petition and not whether the dispute between petitioner and District Judge was justified or whether the Registrar had asked the District Judge to give some judgment in favour of particular party. The argument that complaint was manoeuvred is again devoid of any substance. The report was submitted by the Joint Registrar on allegating which petitioner did not and could not deny. 9. It was then urged that proceedings were in violation of Rule(C)(3j of Chapter 111 of Rules of Court Learned Counsel urged that the reference by the Administrative Committee to Inquiry Officer was bad as no preliminary enquiry had been held finding a prima facie case against petitioner nor any charges had been framed by it. 9. It was then urged that proceedings were in violation of Rule(C)(3j of Chapter 111 of Rules of Court Learned Counsel urged that the reference by the Administrative Committee to Inquiry Officer was bad as no preliminary enquiry had been held finding a prima facie case against petitioner nor any charges had been framed by it. According to learned Counsel framing of charge by Inquiry Officer was bad. Rule (C)(3) of Chapter 111 reads as under : "Consideration of the preliminary report in disciplinary matters and directing holding of disciplinary enquiry against officers of the subordinate judiciary." It does not require Administrative Committee to frame the charge-sheet. A bare reading shows that appointment of Inquiry Officer and framing of charge by him was not contrary to this rule. As stated earlier no preliminary enquriry was held but report was submitted by the Joint Registrar from which the Committee was satisfied that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. 10. Apart from these arguments the learned Counsel relied on various paragraphs of the writ petition and supplementary rejoinder affidavit and urged that entire proceedings were bad as they were actuated with mala fide. No specific mala fide was pointed out except that promotion was made to deprive petitioner of getting an adjudication on merits from Supreme Court and that during personal interview the inquiry officer had given him the impression that in case he contested the proceedings he was bound to be dismissed from service but in case he expressed regret he might be let-off with minor punishment. Both these allegations were denied in counter-affidavit on strength of letters of the Chief Justice and the Inquiry Officer on record. Reliance was also placed on State of Haryana v. Rajendra, AIR 1972 SC 1004 . It is astonishing that petitioner chose to describe even his promotion as motivated. In counter-affidavit it has been averred that it was not known till July, 1979 if petitioner bad filed any leave petition in Supreme Court. In supplementary rejoinder-affidavit it is averred that as notice was issued on leave petition first on 6th February, 1979 and then od 7th April, 1979, copy of which was served on counsel for State, the claim that the court came to know in July, 1*79 is incorrect. It is indeed far-fetched. In supplementary rejoinder-affidavit it is averred that as notice was issued on leave petition first on 6th February, 1979 and then od 7th April, 1979, copy of which was served on counsel for State, the claim that the court came to know in July, 1*79 is incorrect. It is indeed far-fetched. It is doubtful if the court would have promoted the petitioner had it come to know that he had filed a leave petition in the Supreme Court with such wild allegations. Mala fide cannot be based on assumptions. It is a serious matter which requires positive material Even assuming that technically it was known, it hardly makes any difference. As stated earlier promotion of the petitioner was made in normal course by the Administrative Committee. From the agenda of the Administrative Committee (sent from office and examined) of the date on which petitioner was promoted it is clear that certain vacancies had arisen and the name of those officers who had been passed over was considered the Committee after examining roll and service record promoted the petitioner and others. The argument, therefore, that it was to deprive petitioner of getting adjudication on merits with ulterior motive is misconceived. 11. As regards mala fide of Inquiry Officer it would be better to extract from his letter which is self explanatory : "On or about 6th of March, 1980 Shri J. R. Sharma met me at m residence in connection with his application dated 29th of February, 1980. It was then explained to him that neither the statement of Shri Satish Chandra, the Honble C. J. nor that of the Registrar had been recorded earlier and that both of them shall be examined by me during the enquiry. It was further explained to Shri Sharma that he will have full opportunity to cross-examine the Chief Justice as well as the Registrar, Shri J. R. Sharma then started saying some wild things and asserted that he would, put all those things to the Chief Justice in cross-examination. It was further explained to Shri Sharma that he will have full opportunity to cross-examine the Chief Justice as well as the Registrar, Shri J. R. Sharma then started saying some wild things and asserted that he would, put all those things to the Chief Justice in cross-examination. told him that he was himself a Magistrate and he should know best what he should ask the C J. in cross-examination and what he should not The allegations in para 9, the Enquiry Officer pointed out that the petitioner was bound to be held guilty but suggested to the petitioner that in case the petitioner did not contest and express his regrets he might be let off with minor punishment is absolutely wrong and without any basis." In view of facts stated above the ratio of Rajendras case State of Haryana v. Rajendra, AIR 192 SC 1004 has no application as no single allegation or even all the allegations taken together do not make out a case of bias or mala fied. In fact it was uncharitable for petitioner who was officer of Judicial service to allege that Chief Justice had animosity against him. Representations made by petitioner were decided by an Administrative Judge, other than the Chief Justice, who is said to have been Administrative Judge at relevant time. Even the censure entry was not given by him. 12. It was then urged that the recommendations made by Administrative Committee for taking action against the petitioner was vitiated as Enquiry Officer aDd Chief Justice who had held enquiry and who had made complaint against petitioner and who were members of the Administrative Committee, committed error in participating in those proceedings and thereby violated the settled principle of complainant not being a judge in his own case. Reliance was placed on Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1356 and M/s. J. Mahapatra and Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572 . At augment again has no merit and is against the record. In counter-affidavit it has been stated that when deliberation took place in Administrative Committee the Chief Justice and the Enquiry Officer did not participate and walked out. Same happened when matter was taken up by Full Court. In order to satisfy the record was sent for and from minutes of Administrative Committee and Full Court this is amply borne out. In counter-affidavit it has been stated that when deliberation took place in Administrative Committee the Chief Justice and the Enquiry Officer did not participate and walked out. Same happened when matter was taken up by Full Court. In order to satisfy the record was sent for and from minutes of Administrative Committee and Full Court this is amply borne out. Principle, therefore, of the complainant or the Enquiry Officer being judge in their own case does not arise. 13. In addition to these arguments the learned Couusel raised two legal submissions. It was urged that charge-sheet was served on petitioner under subrule (2) of Rule 3 of U. P. Gevernraent Servants Conduct Rules. But that rule did not specify any misconduct. Those are enumerated in Rules 4 to 30. The charge did not relate to any of these misconducts. Therefore, the charges levelled against petitioner were vague and the finding of Inquiry Officer was vitiated. Learned Counsel submitted that Rule 3 was of general nature which exposed employees to vagaries of subjective evaluation. He urged that the charge sheet did not mention any specific order of Government which was violated. And if such charge-sheets are upheld it would result in grave injustice as it was obligatory to specify and define with precision and accuracy the breach of any specific or implied order of Government and not leave it open to infer misconduct. The inspiration for this argument was derived from observation in A. L. Kalra v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361 . But how misplaced it as can be demonstrated by comparison of Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules which came up for consideration before Hon'ble Court and Rule 3 and onwards of U. P. Government servants Conduct Rules. Rule 4 of E. P. T. Rules was headed as general rule which required an employee at all times (i) to maintain absolute integrity (ii) (ii) do nothing which was unbecoming of a public servant. And Rule 5 bore the heading Misconduct. The Honble Court held : "It would therefore, appear that even if the facts alleged in the two heads of charges are accepted as wholly proved, yet that would not constitute misconduct as prescribed in Rule 5 and no penalty can be imposed for such misconduct. And Rule 5 bore the heading Misconduct. The Honble Court held : "It would therefore, appear that even if the facts alleged in the two heads of charges are accepted as wholly proved, yet that would not constitute misconduct as prescribed in Rule 5 and no penalty can be imposed for such misconduct. It may as well as he mentioned that Rule 5 which prescribes penalties specifically provides that any of the penalties therein mentioned can be imposed on an employee for misconduct committed by him. Rule 4 does not specify a misconduct." The Honble Court, therefore, held that officer could not be removed from service because penalty could be imposed for misconduct but the Rule 4 did not relate to misconduct. Rules 3 to 30 of U. P. Rules are entirely different. They are a compendium of norms a Government Servant is expected to observe during period he is in service. Rule 3 reads as under : "Rule 3. General. - (1) Every Government Servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. (2) Every Government Servant shall at all times conduct himself in accordance with the specific or implied orders of Government regulating behaviour and conduct which may be enforced." It is no doubt headed as general but there is no rule analogous to Rule 5 in the E. P. T. Rules detailing misconduct. The general here has been used in contradistinction to specific conduct detailed in Rule 4 and onwards. But violation or breach of it results in similar consequences as breach of any other rule. Whether requirement of maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty which is somewhat analogous to Rule 4 of E. P. T. Rules is vague and not required to be gone into as charge-sheet was framed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 read with Rule 4 of Classification and Control Rules. The sub-rule is no doubt widely worded, but it is necessary for maintenance of discipline in service. Integrity, honesty, decency are incapable of any precise definition. At the same time they are well understood and clearly known. The behaviour and conduct, both written an unwritten expected of a Government Servant are universally recognized. As it was not possible to mention each of them the sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 laid down that breach of such order shall be actionable. But its import cannot be in doubt. At the same time they are well understood and clearly known. The behaviour and conduct, both written an unwritten expected of a Government Servant are universally recognized. As it was not possible to mention each of them the sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 laid down that breach of such order shall be actionable. But its import cannot be in doubt. It cannot be described as vague. It has been rightly described as general because each and every Government Servant is expected to follow and obey the circulars issued by Government in respect of behaviour from time to time. Rule 4 and onwards mention specific violation which may also result in removal. For instance consuming liquor in public place or taking paid in politics etc. have been put in shape of rule to dispel any doubt about consequence of their violation. 14. Learned Counsel urged that the charge against petitioner was of making deliberate false allegations. But what could be made out against him utmost was absence of due care in ascertaining facts. According to learned Counsel falsify to the knowledge of petitioner should have been established in the light of this expression explained by Supreme Court in Chandrapal Singh v. State, AIR 1982 SC 1356. Learned Counsel, however, omitted to consider that word false which was constructed by the Honble Court was in relation to a statute and not in relation to behaviour in a court proceeding. The decision, therefore, was erroneously pressed in service. 15. Making allegations against Chief Justice by a Judicial Office without ascertaining it even if the entry was given by him was an act of extreme callousness. To allege that Chief Justice desired through Registrar and District Judge to decide a case in a particular manner is to say that the least highly reprehensible. What interest could a Chief Justice had. At least none had been established. Allegations were made with grave irresponsibility unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. Even if there would have been no rule, no circular, no Government order the conduct of petitioner smacked of grossest abuse and indiscipline. It was so writ large that it was not necessary to mention any specific order in the charge. The petitioner was not a Judicial Officer of just yesterday but one who had put in thirteen years service. Some maturity was expected from him. It was so writ large that it was not necessary to mention any specific order in the charge. The petitioner was not a Judicial Officer of just yesterday but one who had put in thirteen years service. Some maturity was expected from him. Yet the question is the punishment inflicted on petitioner in the circumstances was justified. Should the recommendation of Inquiry Officer have been ignored was the mistake of making unwarranted allegations such serious that the ends of justice could not have been met in any other manner This necessitates a closer study of background. Normally this court does not in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, interfere with the quantum of punishment but while going through the record, this Court came across certain facts which cannot be overlooked firstly because they could not have been known to petitioner and secondly they are relevant for determining of punishment of removal from service can be upheld. We are conscious that a court should not twelve into records and the decision should be rendered on record of the petition, but we cannot overlooked the responsibility which a Court has in such matters nor we can shut our eyes to such glaring facts which if brought to the notice of the Administrative Committee of Full Court, may have resulted in different recommendation. We need not emphasise that no rule or technicality can stand in way of justice. Severity of punishment has to be examined from two aspects one in relation to allegations made by petitioner and other his behaviour before Inquiry Officer. As regards first it would not be out of place to mention that the character roll of petitioner is unblemished. No adverse entry was given to him by the District Judge or Administrative Judge either before 1975 or after it. Even for the earlier period in Sultanpur the entry by another District Judge is good. The lone entry which resulted in all this is the entry of 1975, by District Judge and censure entry by this Court for not handing over charge. Unfortunately the background of all this is not very happy. The petitioner was always found to be honest judicial officer. At least his integrity was never doubted. It appears some search warrant was issued by him in a criminal case when he was posted at Sultanpur. Unfortunately the background of all this is not very happy. The petitioner was always found to be honest judicial officer. At least his integrity was never doubted. It appears some search warrant was issued by him in a criminal case when he was posted at Sultanpur. Regarding this the Sub-Inspector Kotwali had given some information to the Superintendent of Police who on 24th August, 1975 sent a copy of the report to the District Judge with a covering letter which shows that the Superintendent of Police and the District Judge had discussed the matter earlier. The District Judge thereafter called the petitioner and there can be no doubt that he did something which he should not have done. It is mentioned in detail in letter dated 27th August, 1975 copy of which has been filed with rejoinder affidavit. The letter is a sad commentary on behaviour of a senior District Judge with his subordinate. As a result of his taking interest in pending case and pressurising him the petitioner felt hurt and he sent the letter addressed to the Registrar bringing to his notice in detail as to what had happened. In fact it was a complaint against District Judge. On this the Administrative Judge did not even call for any comment of the District Judge, contrary to the common practice of this Court on the Administrative side. And on 5th September, 1975 an order was passed by him transferring petitioner. It amounted adding insult to injury. And this probably may have been the reason that he did not hand over charge immediately. Although the conduct of petitioner in not handing over charge cannot be justified and he should have obeyed the orders yet the humiliation of transfer without calling for any comment from District Judge must have certainly been disturbing. Not only this when petitioner approached Administrative judge and met him he was asked to clear up the matter with the District Judge. This was admitted by the Chief Justice who was the Administrative Judge at relevant time in his statement before Inquiry Officer. We do not want to comment on it. Not only this when petitioner approached Administrative judge and met him he was asked to clear up the matter with the District Judge. This was admitted by the Chief Justice who was the Administrative Judge at relevant time in his statement before Inquiry Officer. We do not want to comment on it. But this advise was given to petitioner by the Administrative Judge when he was satisfied that the District Judge had interred in a judicial matter as is clear from the endorsement made by him on comment sent by District Judge, on its own, on letter of petitioner to the effect. The District Judge need not evince interest in a pending case administratively. The complaint of petitioner therefore, was mainly true. Since personal interview with Administrative Judge did not yield any result the petitioner tried to get the transfer stayed on judicial side. Having filed there he appears to have reconciled. But the District Judge, against whom petitioner was complaining gave him adverse entry which was communicated in 1976. Representation against this entry was allowed in part. He filed a review petition. In the meantime in August 1977 rules of Court were amended and the system of one Administrative Judge was replaced by eight. In the new system earlier Administrative Judge did not agree to continue. The review petition, therefore, was rejected by another Administrative Judge in September 1977 the new Administrative Judge gave him a censure entry for not handing over charge in 1975. It appears petitioner lost his nerve. And filed writ petition and special leave petition. In the background of what had happened earlier and also because he might not have known that the entries were given by another Honble Judge since the time gap in award of entry and change in system of Administrative Judge was very short, developed feeling that probably the Chief Justice who in 1975 was the Administrative Judge was in fact annoyed with him. The petitioner was not justified entertaining such feeling. But justification and apprehension are not same. If petitioner would have acted with little more care probably the unfortunate allegations special leave petition would have been avoided but the petitioner appears to have developed an apprehension that there was some link in it. The petitioner was not justified entertaining such feeling. But justification and apprehension are not same. If petitioner would have acted with little more care probably the unfortunate allegations special leave petition would have been avoided but the petitioner appears to have developed an apprehension that there was some link in it. In drawing this inference or developing these apprehensions petitioner might have been wholly unjustified even though he had put in thirteen years of service but the mental and financial strain, as mentioned by petitioner, cannot in the circumstances be ruled out. Further the Inquiry Officer might not have assured him that he shall be let off with minor punishment but it is not understandable that the petitioner who had put in thirteen years of service, has a family to support was so touchy that he filed three petitions and even went upto Supreme Court would not have contested the proceedings. It is admitted by Inquiry Officer that when petitioner threatened to cross-examine Chief Justice he told him to decide it for himself as he was a Judicial Officer. It was the advise of the Inquiry Officer a very senior judge and member of Administrative Committee of this Court which appears to have softened the petitioner who instead of creating mud thought it proper to throw himself at mercy of Court in hops if not certain to at the Court shall take lenient view. In our opinion the petitioner behaved reasonably in realising the grave mistake committed by him, therefore, tendering apology and throwing himself at mercy of Court. The Inquiry Officer who had the opportunity to watch and talk to him not only refrained from recommending any punishment but suggested that the Court should take a lenient view. The petitioner, therefore, during his talks with him genuinely appears to have become certain that if he did not contest and expressed remorse the Court may not take any action. Although it is not relevant but we consider it necessary to mention that the judge who made the Inquiry was himself strict disciplinarian. The background of allegations coupled with these aspects of behaviour of petitioner namely, throwing himself at mercy of Court do not appear to have been taken into account either by the Administrative Judge or Full Court. Although it is not relevant but we consider it necessary to mention that the judge who made the Inquiry was himself strict disciplinarian. The background of allegations coupled with these aspects of behaviour of petitioner namely, throwing himself at mercy of Court do not appear to have been taken into account either by the Administrative Judge or Full Court. In act they could not have been as in keeping with practice of Court the letter sent by petitioner, the orders on it by the then Administrative Judge, the comments of District Judge amounting to admission of interference in judicial matter, the order on it of the Chief Justice do not appear to have been placed before the Administrative Committee or Full Court. They were, in our opinion, relevant for objective appraisal of quantum of punishment more so when petitioner had not participated and thrown himself at mercy of Court. Unfortunantely for petitioner due to rule of fairness the Inquiry Officer who could have been in a position to explain his recommendation for lenient view and was conversant with record did not participate in deliberations either before the Administrative Committee or before the Full Court. They so a long way to mitigate unbecoming behaviour of petitioner. He should have been given a chance to survive. 16. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 31st May, 1982 removing petitioner from service and recommendation of full court and the Administrative Committee recommending petitioners removal are quashed. The opposite-party No. is further directed on its administrative side to decide on punishment afresh on material on record expeditiously. Since petitioner is out of service if possible, within one month from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ?