JUDGMENT - DEVADHAR J.P., J.:—The question raised in this petition is whether the Disciplinary Authority is justified in compulsorily retiring a Metropolitan Magistrate from service under Rule 5(1)(vii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1979 on the ground that the said Magistrate was found travelling without ticket in a local train thrice and on each occasion the behaviour of the said Magistrate with the Railway Staff in asserting that the Magistrates need not have a ticket was improper and constituted grave misconduct. According to the petitioner, the first instance of alleged ticketless travelling is a concocted one and the other two instances of ticketless travelling were due to unavoidable circumstances for which penal charges have been promptly paid by the petitioner and, therefore, the levy of major penalty is wholly unwarranted and the same is totally disproportionate to the offence committed. According, to the respondents, apart from ticketless travelling, the conduct of the petitioner on each of the three occasions in creating a scene at the railway station by asserting that the Metropolitan Magistrates have a right to travel without ticket and the conduct of the petitioner in addressing a letter dated 8-12-1997 to the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai asking him to issue necessary instructions to the above effect to the lower authorities so as to pressurise the ticket collectors not to perform their duties in accordance with law, constitutes grave misconduct warranting imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. 2. Facts in brief as set out in the above petition are that on 28-5-1992 the petitioner was appointed as a Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay. The petitioner took charge as Metropolitan Magistrate at 16th Court, Ballard Pier Bombay on 19th August, 1992. During the period from 1992 to 1997 the petitioner acted as Magistrate at different Metropolitan Magistrate Courts in Bombay. During this period, her performance was appreciated by members of the Bar as well as litigants. The quarterly assessment of the petitioners performance was found to be satisfactory. In several quarters, the petitioners performance was stated to be noteworthy. When posted at Mazgaon from September, 1994 to August, 1995 the petitioner obtained an identity card from the Central Railway and purchased monthly or quarterly season ticket or railway pass for commuting from her residence at Mulund upto Byculla by train for attending the Court. In several quarters, the petitioners performance was stated to be noteworthy. When posted at Mazgaon from September, 1994 to August, 1995 the petitioner obtained an identity card from the Central Railway and purchased monthly or quarterly season ticket or railway pass for commuting from her residence at Mulund upto Byculla by train for attending the Court. From August, 1995 to October, 1997, the petitioner was posted at Andheri Metropolitan Magistrates Court. At that time, a Maruti van was allotted for joint use by four Metropolitan Magistrates residing at Thane as well as for the petitioner residing at Mulund. In November, 1997, the petitioner stopped using the pool car which was allotted to her to be used jointly with the other Metropolitan Magistrates. The petitioner obtained an identity card from the Central Railway on 3rd November, 1997 for purchasing a season ticket for travelling from Mulund to Dadar, where she was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner had purchased First Class season ticket for one month valid from 5th November, 1997 to 4th December, 1997. 3. On 5th December, 1997 while entering the Mulund Railway Station, the petitioner handed over Rs. 500/- and the railway identity card to her orderly for purchasing a new first class season ticket from Mulund to Dadar. The petitioner had also handed over her purse to the orderly as was her habit, to avoid loss thereof while boarding or alighting from the train. The orderly went to purchase the season ticket at Mulund Station and the petitioner proceeded to the railway platform. The petitioner boarded the train at Mulund in the belief that her orderly had purchased the new season ticket. In the train the petitioner was new accosted by two ticket collectors who asked the petitioner to produce ticket or pass. The petitioner narrated the above facts and told them that the season ticket will be produced at the Dadar railway station. The petitioner also told them that she did not have any cash with her as her purse was with her orderly. The ticket collectors did not believe the petitioner and threatened to carry out personal search of the petitioner to ascertain whether she carried any cash or not. Several lady passengers travelling in the railway compartment prated at the said behaviour of the ticket collectors. 4. The ticket collectors did not believe the petitioner and threatened to carry out personal search of the petitioner to ascertain whether she carried any cash or not. Several lady passengers travelling in the railway compartment prated at the said behaviour of the ticket collectors. 4. At Dadar railway station, the said Ticket Collectors at the request of the petitioner took her to the office of the Station Superintendent. The petitioner narrated the facts to the Station Superintendent Mr. Sharma. The petitioner was asked to pay the railway fare and fine for having travelled without ticket from Mulund to Dadar. Petitioners request to the station Superintendent to allow her to make a telephone call for making arrangement to pay the amount was rejected. In the meantime, another Metropolitan Magistrate travelling by the next train reached Dadar Railway Station and on being informed about the plight of the petitioner, came to the office of the station Superintendent and handed over to the petitioner Rs. 102/- which was paid by the petitioner to the Railway Officers against a receipt. Lateron the petitioner came to know that the orderly who was to purchase the season ticket for the petitioner at Mulund could not season ticket for the petitioner at Mulund station before the orderly could purchase the same. The orderly, therefore, boarded the train and on reaching the Dadar Railway Station, rushed to purchase new season ticket for the petitioner. After purchasing the season ticket at about 10.30 a.m. the orderly was waiting for the petitioner at the exit gate of the Dadar Railway Station. In the meantime, the petitioner was compelled to pay the fare and penalty in the office of the Station Superintendent at the Dadar Station. 5. Thereafter, pursuant to a letter dated 12th December, 1997 addressed by the office of the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Central Railway, Mumbai to the Registrar, High Court, Bombay complaining about the ticketless travelling and the alleged misconduct of the petitioner in refusing to pay the charges and unnecessarily creating a scene at Dadar Railway Station, Mr. N.N. Kumbhar, Deputy Registrar was appointed as Preliminary Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report. The said Preliminary Enquiry Officer recorded statements of the concerned Railway Staff. The said railway staff in their statements alleged that the petitioner was found travelling without valid ticket on 21-2-1997, 13-5-1997. N.N. Kumbhar, Deputy Registrar was appointed as Preliminary Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report. The said Preliminary Enquiry Officer recorded statements of the concerned Railway Staff. The said railway staff in their statements alleged that the petitioner was found travelling without valid ticket on 21-2-1997, 13-5-1997. In their statements, the railway staff narrated the incident of 26-8-1998 concerning the Metropolitan Magistrate Mrs. Rama Sawant Waghule and another incident which took place in the Chamber of Metropolitan Magistrate Mr. V.V. Phand. On completion of the Preliminary Enquiry, the Preliminary Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 25/3/1998 stating that the incidents of ticketless travelling on 21-2-1997, 13-5-1997 and 5-12-1997 have been established against and petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner misused her official identity card and made unnecessary scene on the railway platform attracting the attention of the general public. It was further stated in the report that the conduct of the petitioner in giving threats to the Railway Staff amounts to misconduct which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer as per Rule 3(iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979. With reference to the conduct of the other two Metropolitan Magistrates viz. Mrs. Rama Sawant Waghule and Mr. V.V. Phand, it was stated that their conduct was also unbecoming of Judicial Officers as per Rule 3(iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979. 6. By a Memorandum dated 17-12-1998 the Registrar, High Court, appellate side, Bombay informed the petitioner that the disciplinary authority proposes to hold an inquiry against petitioner as well as the other two Metropolitan Magistrates namely Mrs. Rama Sawant Waghule and Mr. V.V. Phand under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1979. Along with the said Memorandum, the articles of charge with statement of imputation of misconduct in support of each article of charge and list of documents as well as list of witnesses were forwarded to the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was that :- (a) The petitioner claimed that the Magistrates are not required to buy ticket or pass and are allowed to travel in any local train, in first class without any travel authority for the purpose of attending duties. The charge against the petitioner was that :- (a) The petitioner claimed that the Magistrates are not required to buy ticket or pass and are allowed to travel in any local train, in first class without any travel authority for the purpose of attending duties. (b) The petitioner was caught thrice of travelling in first class compartment of local train without ticket/travel authority and when caught the petitioner entered into arguments with ticket checking staff and on 5-12-1997 at about 10.30 to 11 a.m. created a scene and threatened the ticket collectors at Dadar Railway Station when the authorities insisted that the petitioner pay the necessary charges for travelling without ticket. The charge against the other two Magistrates was that on 26-8-1997, Mrs. Rama Waghule, a Magistrate travelled in a First Class compartment without proper ticket pass and entered into arguments with ticket collector when asked to pay Rs. 122/- for travelling in First Class without ticket or travel authority. The charge against Metropolitan Magistrate Mr. V.V. Phand was that he at the instance of Magistrate Mrs. Rama Waghule, called the lady ticket collectors to his chamber on or about 27-8-1997 at about 2.00 p.m. and advised them to look after the Magistrates and thereby pressurised the ticket collectors into not doing their duty and not catching any Magistrate, even if he she was found travelling without ticket. It was stated that the above acts of commission and omission of all the three Metropolitan Magistrates, details of which were given in the statement of imputations, show that the all of them abused their official position and misused Government machinery to pressurise the ticket collecting staff so that they shall not do their duty even if they happened to catch any Metropolitan Magistrate travelling without ticket/travel authority and that amounts to grave misconduct and the said behaviour of all the three Magistrates was unbecoming of Judicial Officers. 7. On 29-1-1999 the petitioner sent her reply to the articles of charge and stated that the alleged incident of ticketless travelling on 21-2-1997 was deliberately concocted and imaginary. As regards the remaining two incidents of ticketless travelling is concerned, the petitioner stated that the same were due to unavoidable circumstances as more particularly set out therein. 7. On 29-1-1999 the petitioner sent her reply to the articles of charge and stated that the alleged incident of ticketless travelling on 21-2-1997 was deliberately concocted and imaginary. As regards the remaining two incidents of ticketless travelling is concerned, the petitioner stated that the same were due to unavoidable circumstances as more particularly set out therein. Sometime in April, 1999 His Hon. Shri H.S. Deshpande was appointed as Inquiry Officer for holding disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner with reference to the charges levelled against the petitioner. On 1-9-1999 the petitioner filed her statement of defence before the Inquiry Officer setting out several facts that had actually taken place and denied the allegations made against her. On 20-9-1999 the Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of the petitioner in the same manner in which the statement of an accused in a criminal case is required to be recorded. After recording statement of several witnesses, the Inquiry Officer on 28-10-1999 submitted his report stating that the charges alleged and proved against the petitioner indicates that not once but atleast thrice the petitioner was found travelling without ticket and her behaviour on each occasion was for from proper and such a conduct can lower the position and reputation of the judiciary in the eyes of public at large. It was further stated that when caught travelling without ticket on 21-2-1997, the conduct of the petitioner in handing over her official identity card to the lady ticket collector and walking away by telling that her constable will come and done needful was highly improper and was not expected from a Judicial Officer. It was reported that the onus was on the petitioner to establish her case that the official identity card which was lost was found at the Dadar Railway Station and the same was collected by the constable Mr. Phad on behalf of the petitioner on 24-2-1997. It was reported that in the absence of evidence led by the petitioner herself and the constable Mr. Phad who collected the identity card from the railway authorities on 24-2-1997, it was reasonable to believe the version of the Railway Staff that on 21-2-1997 when caught travelling without ticket, the petitioner handed over her official identity card and walked away. Such grave misconduct, it was reported, warrants major penalty of compulsory retirement as per Rule 5(1)(vii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. Such grave misconduct, it was reported, warrants major penalty of compulsory retirement as per Rule 5(1)(vii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. 8. On 31-12-1999 the Registrar of the High Court informed the petitioner that the disciplinary authority i.e. the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court on consideration of the record of inquiry and the report of the Inquiry Officer, have directed issuance of a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the findings and the reasons recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be accepted and why the major penalty including penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon the submit her representation within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice dated 31-12-1999. 9. On 24-1-2000 the petitioner made an application stating therein that in view of the observation contained in the report of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner may be permitted to examine herself and to examine three independent witnesses as and by way additional evidence in the interest of Justice and fair play. By the said application, the petitioner requested that necessary directions be issued to the Inquiry Officer in that behalf. By a letter dated 28th February, 2000 the Registrar of the High Court intimated to the petitioner that her application dated 24th January, 2000 had been rejected by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, on 9th March, 2000 the petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notice of the Registrar dated 31st December, 1999. On the basis of the decision taken by the disciplinary authority the State Government issued the impugned order dated 27-9-2000 thereby compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service under Rule 5(1)(vii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 with effect from the date of the receipt of the said order by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement from service. 10. Mr. Parekh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the decision of the disciplinary authority contained in the impugned order dated 27-9-2000 is a cryptic order and no grounds or reasons are set out in the said order for upholding the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 10. Mr. Parekh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the decision of the disciplinary authority contained in the impugned order dated 27-9-2000 is a cryptic order and no grounds or reasons are set out in the said order for upholding the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (State of Punjab v. Bhaktwar Singh others)1, 1972 S.L.R. 85 S.C. and the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of (H.K. Khanna v. Union of India)2, reported in 1971(1) S.L.R. 618(P H), it was submitted that the cryptic order of the disciplinary authority which does not disclose reasons cannot be said to have been passed by application of its mind to the material or record and such a order being bad in law is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. It was submitted that the disciplinary authority ought to have granted the application of the petitioner dated 24-1-2000 for leading additional evidence. It was submitted that the petitioner was not bound to examine herself as a witness in support of her case. In fact, Clause 6.24(3) of the Manual of Department Enquiries specifically provides that if a Government servant does not offer himself as his own witness, it should not be relied upon by the presenting officer to deduce therefrom the guilt of the accused in any way. However, in the present case, the Inquiry Officer drew adverse inference against the petitioner for not examining herself and rejected the case of the petitioner on that ground. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the disciplinary authority ought to have allowed the application of the petitioner who was willing to be examined and cross-examined in order to establish the truth of the matter. It was submitted that failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner to lead additional evidence has resulted in grave injustice and grave miscarriage of justice. 12. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer has misread and misconstrued the evidence on record. Vital evidence on record such as, two important documents admitted by the Railway Superintendent Mr. Sharma viz. railway identity card dated 3-11-1997 and railway pass dated 5-12-1997 issued at 10.34 a.m. have been totally ignored by the Inquiry Officer. 12. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer has misread and misconstrued the evidence on record. Vital evidence on record such as, two important documents admitted by the Railway Superintendent Mr. Sharma viz. railway identity card dated 3-11-1997 and railway pass dated 5-12-1997 issued at 10.34 a.m. have been totally ignored by the Inquiry Officer. Even the letter 8-12-1997 addressed by the petitioner to the General Manager of the Central Railway has been miscread and misinterpreted. It was submitted that Rule 8(25) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 specifically provides that an Inquiry Officer is not empowered to recommend the punishment to be imposed upon the delinquent officer. However, in breach of the said Rule, the Inquiry Officer has recommended imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. It was submitted that the findings or conclusions of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and arbitrary and no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusions on the facts on record of the said inquiry. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Sree Ram Rao)3, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1723, (Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police others)4, 1999(2) S.C.C. 10 and (Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra others)5, 2000(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)658. 13. Turning to the charges levelled against the petitioner, it was submitted that the alleged incident of ticketless travelling by the petitioner on 21-2-1997 is a totally cooked up story. It was submitted that from August, 1995 to September, 1997, the petitioner was using the official pool car for commuting between the Court and her residence and that there was no necessity for the petitioner to travel by local train during that period and these facts could be verified from the pool car log book as well as from Sudhakar Phad, the Police Constable attached to the petitioner. As the petitioner had not travelled by train on 21-2-1997, there was no question of her being caught travelling without ticket on 21-2-1997. It was submitted that the petitioner had lost her official identity card and was telephonically informed at her residence that it was found at Dadar station. Hence on 24-2-1997 the Police Constable Sudhakar Phad had collected the identity card on behalf of the petitioner after giving acknowledgement to the railway authorities. It was submitted that the petitioner had lost her official identity card and was telephonically informed at her residence that it was found at Dadar station. Hence on 24-2-1997 the Police Constable Sudhakar Phad had collected the identity card on behalf of the petitioner after giving acknowledgement to the railway authorities. Taking undue advantage of the above receipt issued by Mr. Phad the lady ticket collector Mrs. Suchita Salvi had falsely cooked up a story that on 21-2-1997 when caught travelling without ticket, the petitioner took out her official identity card and put it in her hand and walked away saying that "my constable will come and do the needful". It was submitted that the reason for cooking up the above story was because some time in November, 1997 the petitioner had rebuked the ticket collectors for ill-treating some ladies while letting off other when they had caught many ladies without ticket in the first class ladies compartment. It was submitted that the official identity card was not handed over by the petitioner to the Railway Staff, but it was found by the Railway Staff at Dadar Station. It was submitted that the falsity of the case of ticketless travelling by the petitioner on 21-2-1997 is established from the following: (a) If a person is found travelling without ticket, he/she is not allowed to go without paying the charges. No such charges were collected from the petitioner (b) If it is to be believed that on 21-2-1997 the petitioner walked away by handing over the official identity card, then on 24-2-1997 while returning the identity card, the charges would have been collected. In fact, no such charges have been collected even on 24-2-1997 while returning her identity card. (C) Mrs. Suchita Salvi, the ticket collector had not even reported the above incident in writing to the higher authorities and the said allegations were made for the first time while recording her statement before the Preliminary Enquiry Officer on 17-2-1998. (d) Mrs. Suchita Salvi who claims to have caught the petitioner travelling without ticket on 21-2-1997 had no evidence to show that she was on duty at Dadar station on 21-2-1997. (e) There was no entry made in the property register maintained by the Central Railway regarding the identity card allegedly handed over by the petitioner to Suchita Salvi. (d) Mrs. Suchita Salvi who claims to have caught the petitioner travelling without ticket on 21-2-1997 had no evidence to show that she was on duty at Dadar station on 21-2-1997. (e) There was no entry made in the property register maintained by the Central Railway regarding the identity card allegedly handed over by the petitioner to Suchita Salvi. (f) The petitioner was using the pool car for travelling and did not travel by train at the relevant time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the alleged incident of ticketless travelling by the petitioner on 21-2-1997 was totally concocted and the Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority were in grave error in holding that on 21-2-1997 the petitioner had travelled by train without ticket. 14. As regards the second incident of ticketless travelling on 13th May, 1997 is concerned, it was submitted that the petitioner was on leave on 13th May, 1997 for about a month. On 13-5-1997 the petitioner was required to go to Victoria Terminus for her personal work. She had purchased a first class ticket and went to the platform No. 2 at Mulund Railway Station to take a train to Victoria Terminus. On arrival of the train, the petitioner rushed to catch the train. There was huge crowd trying to get into the train and in that rush the petitioner was voluntarily pushed from behind and in the process, the petitioner fell down on behind and in the process, the petitioner fell down the platform. She somehow caught hold of the rod of the compartment and got into the train and immediately thereafter, the train started. In the struggle, the ticket and the change of money which was in the petitioners hand slipped out, which the petitioner realised after the train left Mulund Station. Mrs. Deepa Phadnis, ticket collector and her colleague were in the compartment. Petitioner went to Mrs. Deepa Phadnis and narrated her plight and showed the bruises suffered by the petitioner in the struggle to get into the compartment. Mrs. Deepa Phadnis told the petitioner to pay the charges irrespective of the situation. The petitioner immediately paid Rs. Mrs. Deepa Phadnis, ticket collector and her colleague were in the compartment. Petitioner went to Mrs. Deepa Phadnis and narrated her plight and showed the bruises suffered by the petitioner in the struggle to get into the compartment. Mrs. Deepa Phadnis told the petitioner to pay the charges irrespective of the situation. The petitioner immediately paid Rs. 170/- and obtained a part of the petitioner on 13-5-1997, either initially refusing to pay the charges or allegedly producing an old expired second class pass which had expired on 18-4-1990 was not reported to the higher authorities by Deepa Phadnis till 4-2-1998 when her statement was recorded in the Preliminary Enquiry. The alleged misconduct of the petitioner on 13-5-1997 was not even referred to by Deepa Phadnis in her report dated 5-12-1997. Therefore, it was submitted that there was no merit in the allegations made against the petitioner and the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer in this regard is perverse and no reasonable person could have arrived at that conclusion in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, it was submitted that having held in para 29 of his report that the allegations of Deepa Phadnis that on 13-5-1997 the petitioner had produced an invalid pass which expired on 18-4-1990 has not been proved, the Inquiry Officer ought to have disregarded the false evidence of Deepa Phadnis totally. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the incident of ticketless travelling on 13-5-1997 was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner being not established, no penalty, much less major penalty of compulsory retirement could be imposed upon the petitioner. 15. As regards the third incident of ticketless travelling on 5th December, 1997 is concerned, it was submitted that as stated hereinabove, the petitioner on 5-12-1997 had given an amount of Rs. 500/- to the orderly to purchase a season ticket at Mulund. The petitioner boarded the train thinking that the orderly must have taken the season ticket. However, when the ticket collector enquired about the ticket, the petitioner disclosed her identity and told them that her orderly would bring the pass and the petitioner would be able to produce the same at Dadar Station. The petitioner stated that she had no money as her purse was with the orderly. However, when the ticket collector enquired about the ticket, the petitioner disclosed her identity and told them that her orderly would bring the pass and the petitioner would be able to produce the same at Dadar Station. The petitioner stated that she had no money as her purse was with the orderly. However, the request of the petitioner was not acceded to and the ticket collectors threatened to take the petitioner to the Railway Police Station and conduct personal search. The two lady ticket collectors then held the petitioner by the arms and physically whisked the petitioner out of the railway compartment and thereafter took the petitioner of the Station Superintendent Mr. Sharma. The petitioner was not even allowed to make a phone call for arranging to pay the railway fare and penalty. Thereafter, as stated above, another lady Magistrate who alighted from the next train came to her rescue and on payment of charges, the petitioner was allowed to go. It was submitted that the evidence of Manali Patil, Lata Sankaran, Deepa Phadnis before the Inquiry Officer were not credit worthy as they could not recollect as to exactly what happened on the relevant days. It was submitted that as against the inconsistent stand of these witnesses, the evidence led by the witnesses of the petitioner were cogent and falsified the case put forth by the Railway Staff. It was submitted that the evidence of Mukesh Sharma (Station Supdt.) who specifically admitted that the railway pass had been issued in favour of the petitioner on 5-12-1997 at Dadar at 10.34 a.m. was binding on the Disciplinary Authority. In fact, no attempt was made to controvert that admission. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer erroneously held that the pass produced by the petitioner was issued at 10.24 a.m. on 5-10-1997 and was not issued on 5-12-1997 at 10.34 a.m. as contended by the petitioner. It was submitted that even to the naked eye, it was visible that the said pass was issued on 5-12-1997 at 10.34 a.m. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the fact that when the railway identity card was issued on 3-11-1997, the railway pass could not be said to have been issued on 5-10-1997. It was submitted that even to the naked eye, it was visible that the said pass was issued on 5-12-1997 at 10.34 a.m. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the fact that when the railway identity card was issued on 3-11-1997, the railway pass could not be said to have been issued on 5-10-1997. Neither the Inquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority gave an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions to establish that the pass was issued on 5-12-1997 at 10.34 a.m. Therefore, the patently erroneous conclusion drawn against the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing has totally vitiated the inquiry and in these circumstances the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 16. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer ought to have rejected the evidence of the ticket collectors because all of them had denied that a sum of Rs. 102/- was handed over by the Metropolitan Magistrate Mrs. Waghule to the petitioner in the office of the station Superintendent on 5th December, 1997 to enable the petitioner to pay the railway fare and penalty. The Inquiry Officer ignored the fact that all the ticket collectors had denied that they had ever met Mrs. Waghule on 5-12-1997. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer had no reason to reject the evidence of Mr. Pandurang Dhakne, the constable attached to the Metropolitan Magistrate Mrs. Waghule. The said Mr. Pandurang Dhakne in his evidence had categorically stated that on 5th December, 1997, he had gone to Dadar railway Station in the morning to fetch Mrs. Waghule at 10.30 a.m. There he saw the petitioner and three ladies walking on Platform No. 6 and when approached the petitioner asked Mr. Dhakne as to whether he had any money with him, to which he replied in the negative. Thereafter, Mrs. Waghule who alighted from the next train, went to the office of station Superintendent and gave some money to the petitioner. In view of this cogent evidence on record, which falsifies the testimony of all the ticket collectors, the Inquiry Officer ought to have held that the allegations of misconduct on the part of the petitioner are not proved. Waghule who alighted from the next train, went to the office of station Superintendent and gave some money to the petitioner. In view of this cogent evidence on record, which falsifies the testimony of all the ticket collectors, the Inquiry Officer ought to have held that the allegations of misconduct on the part of the petitioner are not proved. It was submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer with regard to the incident of 5th December, 1997 were based entirely on the adverse inference drawn against the petitioner and particularly the fact that the petitioner did not examine herself as witness in support of her own case. 17. With reference to the two reports, both dated 5-12-1997, made by Mrs. Deepa Phadnis and Mrs. Manali Patil to the higher authorities, it was submitted that the complaints made therein that the petitioner as a Metropolitan Magistrate was travelling without ticket daily in first class and causing great nuisance and that necessary report be sent to the higher authorities for taking legal action against the petitioner were totally baseless. It was submitted that the said reports were not produced before the Inquiry Officer upto the time the evidence of Mrs. Manali Patil was completed. Several adjournments were granted by the Inquiry Officer to Mrs. Manali Patil for production of the original documents. However, the same were not produced. Finally, fabricated copies of those documents were produced on 2nd August, 1999 by Omkar Singh, an employee of the Central Railway. It was submitted that said Omkar Singh was not examined with regard to the authenticity of those documents by the Inquiry Officer and those documents were taken on record without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine Omkar Singh. In these circumstances, it was submitted that no reliance could be placed on the alleged reports dated 5th December, 1997. 18. With reference to the letter dated 8th December, 1997 addressed by the petitioner to the General Manager, Central Railway, it was submitted that the Inquiry Officer had completely misread and mis-interpreted the said letter. It was submitted that the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer that the said letter considerably supports the allegations levelled against the petitioner that as a Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner was claiming to be entitled to travel in the local train without any ticket is totally perverse in the circumstances of the case. It was submitted that the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer that the said letter considerably supports the allegations levelled against the petitioner that as a Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner was claiming to be entitled to travel in the local train without any ticket is totally perverse in the circumstances of the case. It was submitted that in the said letter the petitioner had stated that she was required to enter local train to reach the Court in time. On occasions, when the petitioner was unable to purchase the ticket because of shortage of time, lady ticket collectors harassed the Metropolitan Magistrates in most insulting manner instead of understanding their difficulties. By the said letter the petitioner had requested that a representative should be deputed by the Central Railway to whom she could explain the facts. It was further stated that the Metropolitan Magistrates handling the matters of any Railway Police Station on the Central Railway were given first class passes right from Nagpur to Igatpuri and even the staff attached to the said Magistrates also got free passes. In the said letter the petitioner had stated that the Metropolitan Magistrates also attend the work of railways on Saturday, Sunday and holidays. In the said letter, the petitioner had queried as to whether the Metropolitan Magistrates were not entitled atleast to stand in the first class compartment of the local trains for the purpose of reaching their courts in time during such emergency. In the said letter, the petitioner had requested the General Manager, Central Railway to give necessary instructions to the ticket collectors so that the Metropolitan Magistrates were not humiliated by them in such circumstances and made to pay fine. It was submitted that if the said letter is read as a whole, it was clear that the petitioner was neither misusing her official position nor she was interfering with the duties of the Railway Staff. 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, it was submitted that even assuming that the ticketless travelling on 13th May, 1997 and 5th December, 1997 under extra ordinary circumstance cannot be condoned, it was certainly not a case of imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement from service especially when the petitioner had paid the fare and penalty on both the occasions. It was submitted that the penalty imposed was totally disproportionate to the offence committed. It was submitted that the penalty imposed was totally disproportionate to the offence committed. In this connection reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. M.K. Mishra)6, 2000(3) S.C.C. 450 . With reference to the incident of ticketless travelling on 21st February, 1997, it was submitted that there was no corroborative evidence to establish the charge and the Inquiry Officer was in error in upholding the charges levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, it was submitted that the order impugned in the petition suffers from serious infirmities and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. Mr. Parekh further submitted that the other two Metropolitan Magistrates Mrs. Rama Sawant Waghule and Mr. V.V. Phand, who were also charged with similar offences have been let of by issuing warnings; whereas, the petitioner is inflicted with major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. It was submitted that, in fact, the offence committed by the said two Metropolitan Magistrates were far more serious. On 26-8-1997 Mrs. Waghule (Metropolitan Magistrate) was found travelling in the First Class compartment though she had a second class season ticket. It is on record that 2-3 days thereafter, Mrs. Waghule got arranged a meeting of all the concerned Railway Staff with Shri. V.V. Phand, the Metropolitan Magistrate taking railway matters and that Shri Phand pressurised the Railway Staff so the they did not catch the Magistrates in future ever if they were found without a proper ticket. It was submitted that although the misconduct of those two Magistrates was far more serious, they have been let off and the petitioner is inflicted with a major penalty. It was submitted that the said two Metropolitan Magistrates had not even tendered an apology for their misconduct. The petitioner who for the lapse which occurred on two occasions in extra-ordinary circumstances had paid fare and penalty and had tendered an apology, but the same has not been accepted. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the action of the Disciplinary Authority is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 21. Mr. C.J. Sawant, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the action of the Disciplinary Authority. He submitted that in the matter of disciplinary action against a Judicial Officer, the scope judicial review is limited. 21. Mr. C.J. Sawant, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the action of the Disciplinary Authority. He submitted that in the matter of disciplinary action against a Judicial Officer, the scope judicial review is limited. In this connection, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1723, (B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India)7, 1995(6) S.C.C. 749 and the (High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil)8, 1999(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)918. 22. Mr. Sawant submitted that in the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was found travelling without ticket on 13th May, 1997 and 5th December, 1997. The conduct of the petitioner on both the occasions as corroborated by the evidence led in the matter clearly establish that the petitioner insisted on her right to travel without ticket because she was a Magistrate and further threatened the railway officials with stern action if they harassed her by demanding valid ticket and imposed penalty. It was submitted that the act of travelling without ticket itself was unlawful and on the top of it, the conduct of the petitioner in directing the Railway Staff not to charge the Magistrates even when caught travelling without ticket amounts to interfering with the lawful discharge of duty by the ticket collectors and such a conduct constitutes grave misconduct and, therefore, the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner is totally justified. 23. Mr. Sawant further submitted that the letter dated 8-12-1997 addressed by the petitioner to the General Manager of Central Railway totally supports the case of Railway Staff. He submitted that the fact that the petitioner as a Judicial Officer was found to be travelling without ticket again and again and when caught, the petitioner asserted her right as a Magistrate to travel without ticket and by her letter dated 8-12-1997 directed the General Manager of Central Railway to issue directions to the lower authorities in that behalf clearly amounts to interfering with the lawful discharge of duties by the Railway Staff. It was submitted that the case of the Railway Staff that on 21-2-1997 the petitioner had travelled from Mulund to Dadar without ticket and when caught, the petitioner handed over her official identity card and walked away is consistent with the evidence adduced in the matter. It was submitted that the case of the Railway Staff that on 21-2-1997 the petitioner had travelled from Mulund to Dadar without ticket and when caught, the petitioner handed over her official identity card and walked away is consistent with the evidence adduced in the matter. Accordingly, it was submitted that on evaluation of the evidence on record, if the evidence on record, if the Disciplinary Authority accepted the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer that on three occasions the petitioner was found to be travelling without ticket and the conduct of the petitioner on all the three occasions was unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, then no fault can be found with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and in such a case, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. Before dealing with the rival contentions, let us consider the scope of Judicial Review in the matter of interfering with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India reported in 1995(6) S.C.C. 749 , has held as follows : 12. "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court / Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings of conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceedings. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceedings. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as Appellate Authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the Rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory Rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal; may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the Appellate Authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In (Union of India v. H.C. Goel)9, 1964(4) S.C.R. 718 , this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued." 25. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, reported in 1999(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)918, the Apex Court held as follows : 23. The Judges, at whatever level may be, represent the State and its authority, unlike the bureaucracy or the members of the other service. Judicial service is not merely an employment nor the Judges merely employees. They exercise sovereign judicial power. They are holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility. If the Judicial Officer "tips the scales of justice its rippling effect would be disastrous and deleterious". Dishonest Judicial personage is an oxymoron. Judicial service is not merely an employment nor the Judges merely employees. They exercise sovereign judicial power. They are holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility. If the Judicial Officer "tips the scales of justice its rippling effect would be disastrous and deleterious". Dishonest Judicial personage is an oxymoron. We wish to quote the following observations made by Ramaswamy, J., in (High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil)10, 1998(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)309 "The lymp nodes (cancerous cells) of corruption constantly keep creeping into the vital veins of the judiciary and the need to stem it out by judicial surgery lies on the judiciary itself by its self-imposed or corrective measures or disciplinary action under the doctrine of control enshrined in Articles 235, 124(6) of the Constitution. It would, therefore, be necessary that there should be constant vigil by the High Court concerned on its subordinate judiciary and self-introspection." 26. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court, let us consider the merits of case in hand. 27. It is not in dispute that on 5-12-1997 when the petitioner boarded the First Class compartment of the Central Railway at Mulund station, she did not have a valid ticket/pass in her possession. The act of boarding the train on the assumption that her orderly must have purchased the ticket/pass itself was wrong. As a responsible citizen, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to ensure that before boarding the train she possesses a valid ticket/pass. If a person is found to be travelling without ticket, the ticket checking staff of the railway have every right to demand the fare with penalty. In fact, it is the bounden duty of the ticket checking staff to detect the ticketless travellers and recover from them the fate with penalty as prescribed. In the present case, on 5-12-1997 when the petitioner was caught without ticket, the ticket checking staff demanded the fare and the penalty amount from the petitioner. According to the ticket checking staff, the petitioner was a habitual petitioner refused to pay the charges on the ground that she is a Magistrate and, therefore, has a right to travel without ticket. According to the ticket checking staff, the petitioner was a habitual petitioner refused to pay the charges on the ground that she is a Magistrate and, therefore, has a right to travel without ticket. Thus, according to the ticket checking staff, every time when the petitioner was caught travelling without ticket, she used to create a scene at the railway station, thereby making it extremely difficult for them to discharge their duties. In this context, the petitioner in her written statement of defence submitted before the Inquiry Officer (at page 250 of the petition) has stated as follows :- "At this stage also, I requested them to wait till my orderly came and produce my railway pass; but they refused to wait and threatened to take me to Railway Police Station to take my personal search. I told them that they could not arrest me or take my search without informing the High Court of Bombay, as I am Magistrate and that if they still tried to do so, they would have to face consequences of stern action by the Honourable High Court for causing my arrest, humiliation in public, harassment and also for degrading the status of the judiciary as a whole. I further requested them not to take me to Railway Police Station, but to take me to Station Superintendent office Accordingly they did so." In our opinion, the above statement of the petitioner clearly shows that when caught travelling without ticket on 5-12-1997 the petitioner instead of agreeing to pay the necessary charges, created a scene at the Railway Station and threatened the Railway Staff with stern action at the hands of High Court for demanding charges from her. 28. The above conclusion of ours is further confirmed by the letter addressed by the petitioner to the General Manager, Central Railway on 8-12-1997 which reads as follows :- "Mrs. A.A. Walavalkar Sudeep, Metropolitan Magistrate Sant Dyaneshwar Rd., Bombay Mulund (East) Bombay -400 081. Phone No. 561 1792. December 8, 1997 The General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai. Sir, I would like to mention to you that sometimes I am required to enter into your local trains to reach my Court in time, as the vehicle given to us is a pooling one which takes a very long time due to unexpected traffic on the roads or break downs. December 8, 1997 The General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai. Sir, I would like to mention to you that sometimes I am required to enter into your local trains to reach my Court in time, as the vehicle given to us is a pooling one which takes a very long time due to unexpected traffic on the roads or break downs. During such occasions I am unable to buy tickets because of short of time and consequently it had happened so, that I had to face your nagging ticket collectors. Your lady ticket collectors at Dadar, instead of understanding our difficulties have further harassed us in the most insulting manner and this has left a deep scar in our mind. If you care to know how nasty your people could be, you may depute a representative to whom we can explain the facts. I am aware that the Metropolitan Magistrates handling the matters of any Railway Police Station on central line get First Class free pass right from Nagpur to Igatpuri. Even the staff attached to such Magistrates also get free passes. We also attend to the work of railways on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Are we therefore, not entitled, at least to stand in the First Class compartments of local trains only for the purpose of reaching our courts in time during such emergencies ? Please do the needful in this matter urgently by giving necessary instructions to the ticket collectors, so that we are not humiliated by your ticket collectors on this count and made to pay fine. If you are of the negative opinion that even this little courtesy cannot be extended to us, please communicate to me, so that I am prepared for such eventualities. Your early response would be highly appreciated. Yours truly, (A.A. Walavalkar) C.C. To : Commercial Manager, Central Railway." The contents of the above letter are eloquent enough to convey the misconduct on the part of the petitioner and do not need any further elucidation. No person holding how so high post can claim to travel by train without a valid ticket/pass. If the ticket collectors insist on payment of charges from the Magistrates travelling without ticket, it cannot be said that the nagging ticket collectors harass the Magistrates travelling without ticket in the most insulting manner. No person holding how so high post can claim to travel by train without a valid ticket/pass. If the ticket collectors insist on payment of charges from the Magistrates travelling without ticket, it cannot be said that the nagging ticket collectors harass the Magistrates travelling without ticket in the most insulting manner. It is the duty of the ticket checking staff to collect the charges from the erring passenger be it a Magistrate or any other high erring passenger be it a Magistrate or any other high constitutional authority. The conduct of the petitioner in addressing a letter dated 8-12-1997 to the General Manager of the Central Railway and directing him to issue instructions to the ticket collectors not to insist on collecting fine from the Magistrates travelling without ticket/pass amounts to interfering with the lawful discharge of duty by the ticket checking staff. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority is without any basis or unreasonable. 29. Moreover, it is not the isolated incident of 5-12-1997 alone which culminated in imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner. Even on 13-5-1997 the petitioner was found to be travelling without ticket. It is true that the Inquiry Officer has held that the allegation of the ticket Collector that on 13-5-1997 the petitioner had produced an old invalid pass which had expired on 18-4-1990 has not been proved. But that does not in any way affect the merits of the case, because admittedly, on 13-5-1997 the petitioner could not produce a valid ticket/pass when demanded by the ticket Collectors. Even if the case of the petitioner that she had purchased a First Class ticket on 13-5-1997 but the same was lost while boarding the train is to be believed, it is highly improbabl e that the petitioner voluntarily paid the charges, especially when it is the case of the petitioner that the Magistrates when caught travelling without ticket cannot be asked to pay the fine. In any event, it cannot be said that the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer and upheld by the disciplinary authority that even on 13-5-1997 the petitioner travelled without ticket and when fare was demanded, the petitioner created a scene at the Railway Station cannot be said to be perverse and unreasonable. 30. In any event, it cannot be said that the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer and upheld by the disciplinary authority that even on 13-5-1997 the petitioner travelled without ticket and when fare was demanded, the petitioner created a scene at the Railway Station cannot be said to be perverse and unreasonable. 30. As regards the ticketless travelling on 21-2-1997 is concerned, the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer cannot be faulted. It is the case of the petitioner that she had lost her official identify card and on receiving information that the same was found at Dadar Railway Station, she had deputed constable Mr. Phad to collect her identity card and accordingly, the said constable collected the official identity of the petitioner from the railway authorities on 24-2-1997. In this connection in her written statement at page 245, the petitioner has stated thus :- "During the period from August, 1995 to September, 1997 I was presiding over 44th Court at Andheri, and from August, 1995 to October, 1996 I had used my personal car regularly, and thereafter I was given official pool car. Thus there was no necessity for me to travel by local trains during that period to reach my Court. Even on those days when the official pool car was not available for any reason whatsoever, I used to commute from residence to the Court and back , by my personal car..........." Thus, according to the petitioner she had not travelled by train on 21-2-1997 and, therefore, the case of the Railway Staff that the petitioner when caught travelling without ticket on 21-2-1997 handed over the official identity card and walked away is totally false. 31. In our opinion, if the petitioner was travelling by car during the month of February, 1977 there is no reason why the official identity card lost by the petitioner should be found at Dadar Railway Station. It is not known as to when, where and how the official identity card was lost by the petitioner. These facts were within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. No evidence was led by the petitioner in this behalf. Even the constable Mr. Phad who had collected the identity card of the petitioner from the railway authorities on 24-2-1997 has not been examined to establish that he was sent to collect the lost and found identity card. These facts were within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. No evidence was led by the petitioner in this behalf. Even the constable Mr. Phad who had collected the identity card of the petitioner from the railway authorities on 24-2-1997 has not been examined to establish that he was sent to collect the lost and found identity card. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the evidence of the Railway Staff that on 21-2-1997 the petitioner had travelled without ticket and when demanded the charges, the petitioner handed over her official identity card and walked away appears to be cogent and probable. The fact that no entry was made in the register maintained by the railways about the receipt of the identity card of the petitioner by the Railway Staff or the fact that the Railway Staff did not collect the charges from the petitioner on 21-2-1997 or on 24-2-1997 while returning the identity card or the fact that the concerned ticket collector had not complained about the incident of 21-2-1997 to the higher authorities in writing immediately and it is only while recording the statement during the preliminary enquiry such an allegation was made, does not in any way establish either the case of the petitioner that she had not travelled by train on 21-2-1997 or the case of the Railway Staff that on being caught, the petitioner handed over her official identity card and walked away. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking overall view of the matter, the acceptance of the case put forth by the Railway Staff that on 21-2-1997 the petitioner on being caught travelling without ticket handed over the official identity card and walked away cannot be said to be perverse or that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion. 32. The fact that the Disciplinary Authority had declined to permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence after the report of the Inquiry Officer does not in any way affect the merits of the case. As stated hereinabove, more than the act of travelling without ticket, it is the conduct of the petitioner in insisting upon her right to travel without ticket and threatening the Railway Staff of stern action if they sought to penalise the petitioner for ticketless travelling which has warranted the drastic action against the petitioner. As stated hereinabove, more than the act of travelling without ticket, it is the conduct of the petitioner in insisting upon her right to travel without ticket and threatening the Railway Staff of stern action if they sought to penalise the petitioner for ticketless travelling which has warranted the drastic action against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the refusal to lead additional evidence has led to miscarriage of justice. 33. The contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a cryptic order and it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case is also without any merit. It is now well established in law that in the case of disciplinary action and the punishment thereof, the courts should not interfere with either the factual findings regarding the guilt or in respect of penalty or punishment imposed by the departmental authorities. In such cases, the Court does not act as an Appellate Authority to reappreciate the evidence and the findings recorded by the reappreciate the evidence and the findings recorded by the departmental authorities. In the present case, the charge levelled against the petitioner is established by the written statement of the petitioner and the letter dated 8-12-1997 addressed by the petitioner to the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai. Therefore, no interference is called for on this count. 34. We agree with the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the findings given by the Inquiry Officer to the effect that the pass produced by the petitioner was dated 5-10-1997 and not dated 5-12-1997 as claimed by the petitioner is wrong. With the help of a magnifying glass, we have minutely observed the railway pass produced by the petitioner and we have no manner of doubt that the same was issued by the railway authorities on 5-12-1997 and the same is also corroborated by the evidence of the Station Superintendent Mr. Mukesh Sharma. However, this wrongful finding of the Inquiry Officer does not in any way vitiate the ultimate finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. As stated hereinabove, the fact that on 5-12-1997 the petitioner travelled by the First Class compartment of the Central Railway (local) from Mulund to Dadar without ticket is undisputed. Mukesh Sharma. However, this wrongful finding of the Inquiry Officer does not in any way vitiate the ultimate finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. As stated hereinabove, the fact that on 5-12-1997 the petitioner travelled by the First Class compartment of the Central Railway (local) from Mulund to Dadar without ticket is undisputed. After reaching Dadar station if the railway ticket/pass is purchased that does not exonerate the offence of ticketless travelling by the petitioner from Mulund to Dadar. 35. The contention of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from the vice of discrimination is also without any merit. According to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority was wrong in imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the petitioner and let off the other two Magistrates who were also involved in similar offences. We find no merit in this submission. The charge against the Magistrate Mrs. Rama Waghule was that while holding second class pass, the said Magistrate was found to be travelling in first class compartment. The charge against Mr. V. V. Phand, Magistrate taking up Railway matters was that he had called a meeting of ticket collectors in his chamber and advised them to look after the Magistrates and thereby pressurised the ticket collects into not doing their duty and not catching any Magistrate even if he/she was found travelling without ticket. In our opinion, the facts in the case of the petitioner are totally different from the facts in the case of the other two Magistrates. Mrs. Rama Waghule, Magistrate had a valid second class pass in possession when boarded the train, whereas, the petitioner was found to be travelling without ticket. In the case of Mr. V. V. Phand, it appears that he had used the words "Jara Laksha Theva", "Thoda Dekhiye" or "You should take care" in the meeting of ticket collectors convened in his chamber. The above words used by Mr. V. V. Phand could not be construed to mean that the said Magistrate had directed the Railway Staff not to recover charges from the Magistrates travelling without ticket. In these circumstances, it appears that the benefit of doubt was given to those two Magistrates. Thus, in our opinion, the case of the petitioner stand on a different footing and is not on par with the case of other two Magistrates. In these circumstances, it appears that the benefit of doubt was given to those two Magistrates. Thus, in our opinion, the case of the petitioner stand on a different footing and is not on par with the case of other two Magistrates. Accordingly, the argument of discrimination fails and is liable to be rejected. 36. The contention of the petitioner that the imposition of penalty is disproportionate to the offence committed is also without any merit. The conduct of Judicial Officer i travelling in the local train without a valid ticket/pass is highly improper. Further, the conduct of the petitioner in asserting that she had a right to travel without ticket and addressing a letter dated 8-12-1997 to the General Manager of Central Railway directing him to issue directions to the lower authorities not to fine the Magistrates when they travel without ticket is worse. Such a conduct, in our opinion, directly amounts to pressurising the Railway Staff not to discharge their duties in a lawful manner. Such a conduct is not expected from a Judicial Officer and in the circumstances the imposition of major penalty cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we find that there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. 37. In the present case, the departmental enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law and on the basis of the legal evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority has arrived at the conclusion that imposition of major penalty is warranted in the present case. Such a finding which is based on legal evidence and the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority is a possible view cannot be interfered with in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. 38. For all the aforesaid reasons, we uphold the order impugned in the petition. The writ petition accordingly fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----