JUDGMENT K. M. THAKER, J. 1. IN this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged order dated 23rd October, 1992 dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner was selected as Civil Judge (J.D.) in November, 1981 and was posted as J.M.F.C. and Civil Judge (J.D) at Bhavnagar w.e.f. 12.11.1981 and then she was transferred to Baroda in June 1985. The petitioner was placed under suspension in December, 1988 and a charge-sheet dated 7.5.1990 was issued. After departmental Inquiry the petitioner's service was terminated, by way of dismissal by order dated 23.10.1992. The charges levelled against the petitioner in the said charge-sheet were, inter alia, as under:- "That while you were working as a IInd Joint Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vadodara:- (1) You had demanded illegal gratification from the Advocates on the ground that you as a Judicial Officer is not adequately paid; (2) That you used to accept illegal gratification in the form of gifts and presents from certain Advocates practicing in your Court at vadodara; (3) That you had thick relations with one Arvindbhai Shah a tout and also with an Advocate Shri S.A.Shaikh, who used to get the matters through the said tout and further that Mr. Arvindbhai Shah and Advocate Mr. Shaikh were often found present in your chamber as well as at your residence and other Advocates were not allowed to enter your Chamber when the said Mr. Shah was in your Chamber. (4) That you had acquired certain movable articles during your tenure at Baroda, the intimation regarding which, as required under Rule 19 of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 was not given. The above acts on your part amounts to misconduct and are acts unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. A departmental Inquiry was initiated pursuant to the said chargesheet. A Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad was appointed as an. Inquiry Officer, who submitted his report dated 25/4/1991 opining that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were established. A Disciplinary Committee of the High Court tentatively agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and ordered to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the report of the Inquiry Officer should not be accepted; and why she should not be dismissed from service. A Disciplinary Committee of the High Court tentatively agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and ordered to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the report of the Inquiry Officer should not be accepted; and why she should not be dismissed from service. A copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was also given to the petitioner along with show-cause notice dated 6th August, 1991. The petitioner submitted detailed reply dated 1st October, 1991. After considering the record, including the reply given by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice, the High Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges levelled against her. The High Court, looking to the nature and gravity of the proved charges and after considering all relevant aspects recommended penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The said recommendation was accepted by the High Court and by the State Government and by impugned order dated 23rd October, 1992 the petitioner came to be dismissed from service. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate has appeared for the petitioner, MR. J.B. Pardiwala, learned Advocate has appeared for the respondent No.2 and MR. Nikunt Raval learned AGP has appeared for the respondent No.1. We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 4. Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer, recorded in his report dated 25.4.1991, are either contrary to or without support of any evidence. The conclusion that the charges leveled against petitioner have been proved is erroneous and unsustainable in law as well as on facts. Mr. Sinha also submitted that actually present matter is a case of no evidence inasmuch as any cogent and legally sustainable evidence against the petitioner or in support of the charges which could lead the Inquiry Officer to hold that the charges have been proved, was not available on record but the Inquiry Officer has rested his conclusions on his own surmises not warranted or justified by the material on record. Mr. Mr. Sinha attacked the application dated 16/4/1987 (hereinafter referred to as "said application") and submitted that the said application, which is the basis of the action against the petitioner, did not contain any allegation against the petitioner on the basis of which any of the charges could have been framed or leveled against the petitioner. He attacked the said application also on the ground that the signatures were obtained on a separate blank paper and they were misused by annexing the paper containing the signatures to another paper containing the text of a separately drafted application, which was not before the Advocates who put their signatures on the blank paper in view of the representation that the application was for the demand for water cooler. As regards the first and second charges, Mr. Sinha submitted that there is no material to show that the petitioner had demanded and/or received any illegal gratification from any Advocate on the ground that the Judicial Officers are not adequately paid, or otherwise. No one has come forward to say that he or she had offered petitioner any illegal gratification or that he was witness to the petitioner receiving any gifts from any Advocate. Mr. Sinha submitted that the alleged charge No.3 could have been held as proved only if the relations between the petitioner on one hand and one MR. S.A. Shaikh Advocate and/or one MR. Arvind Shah were established, however, in absence of any evidence establishing such relations, petitioner could not have been held guilty with regard to charge No.3. Mr. Sinha, also submitted that the very foundation of the charge is missing inasmuch as it has not been established that the petitioner had any relation with said MR. S.A. Shaikh and/or MR. Arvind Shah. As regards the charge No.4, Mr. Sinha submitted that the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that considering the value of the articles purchased it was not necessary to intimate the High Court about the purchases and that it was also due to inadvertence and oversight that the petitioner did not intimate the High Court. 5.1 Mr. Sinha also submitted that the entire episode of complaint against the petitioner was created by 3-4 Advocates who were dissatisfied with her as she did not grant order(s) in favour of their client(s). Mr. 5.1 Mr. Sinha also submitted that the entire episode of complaint against the petitioner was created by 3-4 Advocates who were dissatisfied with her as she did not grant order(s) in favour of their client(s). Mr. Sinha has taken us through the statements of witnesses before the Inquiry Officer, which we have carefully considered. Having read the statements, Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of the witnesses is not capable of being treated as cogent evidence and/or capable of leading to legally sustainable conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The petitioner's Counsel has concentrated the attack on the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the nature and sufficiency of the evidence and as an alternative submission, on the quantum of penalty. 5.2 Accordingly, Mr. Sinha submitted that the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer are unsustainable being contrary to law and without support of cogent evidence. Mr. Sinha concluded by submitting that the report and the order based on such conclusions deserve to be set aside. Except the aforesaid, no other submissions are made. Before proceeding further, it deserves to be mentioned at this stage that though in the memo of petition, various grounds e.g. contention with regard to the competence of the disciplinary authority to pass the impugned order and who could be said to be the disciplinary authority and who could be the Competent Authority to impose penalty in her case etc. have been raised, however at the time of hearing, any of the contentions with regard to the competency of the High Court/disciplinary authority to pass the order, have not been pressed in service and have not been canvassed at all. Hence, the same are not addressed and dealt with. 5. PER contra Mr. Pardiwala, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 submitted that the charges against the petitioner are of grave nature, more so considering the position held by the petitioner at the material point of time. Mr. Pardiwala submitted that there is ample evidence to demonstrate that the charges have been rightly held as proved and that the decision of terminating the petitioner from service is also justified. Mr. Mr. Pardiwala submitted that there is ample evidence to demonstrate that the charges have been rightly held as proved and that the decision of terminating the petitioner from service is also justified. Mr. Pardiwala submitted that though the settled legal position with regard to the charges against an employee and the degree of proof in a departmental Inquiry is only of "preponderance of probability" and not of "proof beyond doubt" in present case there are statements of witnesses and also other material available on record which conclusively demonstrate that the charges leveled against petitioner are rightly held as proved and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not incorrect or perverse or unjustified. 6. Mr. Pardiwala submitted that not one or two persons but several persons from the Bar Association of Vadodara had submitted a memorandum dated 16/12/1987 (hereinafter referred to as "memorandum") to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice against the petitioner and her conduct (and against another Judicial Officer) whereupon preliminary Inquiry was held by the learned District Judge and when it prima facie appeared that the material justified initiation of regular departmental Inquiry, the directions for conducting departmental Inquiry were issued. Mr. Pardiwala submitted that it is not true that merely on the basis of the application dated 16.4.1987 that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the final order came to be passed but there was the memorandum submitted by the Bar Association. 8.1 He submitted that the petitioner's Counsel, while targeting the said application as the central mark of the attack, overlooks the memorandum and the meeting which the members/representatives of the Bar Association had with the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Mr. Pardiwala submitted that being Judicial Officer the petitioner had an onerous obligation and duty to maintain the dignity of the office. The main question which, in the light of the submissions of the petitioner's Counsel, arises at the outset is whether this case can be bracketed in the league of "no evidence case". The petitioner's Counsel has vehemently and repeatedly asserted that there is simply no evidence at all which would justify the conclusions regarding the charges leveled against the petitioner. 7. The petitioner's Counsel has vehemently and repeatedly asserted that there is simply no evidence at all which would justify the conclusions regarding the charges leveled against the petitioner. 7. The petitioner's Counsel, inter alia, claimed that the said application was concocted by few Advocates and signatures of other Advocates were obtained for different purpose and then the same were misused and that even if the said application were to be accepted and entertained as bonafide and genuine grievance, then also no allegations are to be found therein, which would give rise to the charges leveled against the petitioner. With the aforesaid two submissions in the backdrop, the petitioner's Counsel referred to the statements of witnesses made before the Inquiry Officer and submitted that even conjoint reading of all the statements will not justify or support the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by the High Court. 8. SO as to appreciate and examine the contentions of the petitioner's Counsel, it is necessary to note some of the relevant facts. 11.1 In November 1981, the petitioner was selected as Civil Judge (S.D.). On 12.11.1981 the petitioner assumed charge at Bhavnagar as Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C. and as mentioned earlier, at the relevant time the petitioner was holding the post of Second Joint Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class and was posted at Vadodara, where she was transferred to and posted in June 1985. 11.2 The memorandum dated 16.12.1987 addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice making grievance against the petitioner and requesting to take legal action against her was submitted by the Bar Association through its representatives practicing in Criminal Courts at Vadodara. It is claimed that the said memorandum was signed by about 16 Advocates and the memorandum also contained reference of the earlier application dated 16.4.1987 and since no actions were taken, the Advocates had resorted to strike to raise voice against corruption. The crux of the memorandum was that the functioning of the petitioner was improper and the petitioner was granting bail in cases of serious offences like murder, bail robbery etc., in the matters where Advocates favoured by her would appear and that the petitioner used to pass favorable orders in cases being conducted by particular Advocate. The crux of the memorandum was that the functioning of the petitioner was improper and the petitioner was granting bail in cases of serious offences like murder, bail robbery etc., in the matters where Advocates favoured by her would appear and that the petitioner used to pass favorable orders in cases being conducted by particular Advocate. 11.3 It deserves to be mentioned that after the said memorandum was received, the learned District Judge was asked to conduct preliminary Inquiry and submit his report. The petitioner was transferred to Kalol (North Gujarat) on 7.3.1988 and subsequently, by order dated 20.12.1988, she was placed under suspension. 11.4 Upon consideration of the record of the preliminary Inquiry, it was considered necessary to hold regular departmental Inquiry and that, therefore, a charge sheet dated 7.5.1990, along with the statement of imputations, was issued. The petitioner submitted her response against the said charge sheet, vide her communication dated 23.7.1990 and denied all the charges. Shri Atodaria, Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court Ahmedabad was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He conducted the departmental Inquiry. During the proceedings, evidence was led on behalf of the department as well as the petitioner and upon conclusion of the proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.4.1991. In the report, the Inquiry Officer held that in light of the material on record all the charges leveled against the delinquent-petitioner were proved. 11.5 It is appropriate to mention at this stage that during the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer, the department examined five witnesses viz. (i) Mr. B.V. Bhavar, (ii) Miss Maltiben Vani, (iii) Mr. Shailesh Patel, (iv) Mr. SOpariwala and (v) Mr. R. Teredesai. The petitioner, in defence, examined Mr. G.R. Sukhwani, Mr. G.A. Patel and Mr. K.M. Bhatt as her witnesses, in addition to giving her own statement. 11.6 During the departmental Inquiry proceedings the petitioner was defended by Advocate. 11.7 The report of the Inquiry Officer was placed before the Court and after consideration of the Inquiry Officer's report, the High Court came to the tentative conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner had been proved to the extent mentioned in the report. The High Court, therefore, proposed to issue show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit her reply as to why the penalty as proposed should not be imposed. The High Court, therefore, proposed to issue show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit her reply as to why the penalty as proposed should not be imposed. Hence, the second show cause notice conveying the tentatively proposed penalty of dismissal from service was issued on 8.8.1991. The report of the Inquiry Officer was also forwarded to the petitioner along with the notice and the petitioner was also called upon to clarify as to whether she desired to be heard in person. In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted her reply on 1.10.1991 and thereafter a committee of the Court heard the submissions made by the petitioner's Counsel. After carefully considering the entire record, replies given by the petitioner and the submissions made by the petitioner's Counsel before the committee, the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges was reached. The Court, then considered the submissions regarding quantum of penalty and came to the conclusion that the facts of the case warranted and justified the penalty of dismissal from service. Consequently, by a letter dated 18.11.1992, the Court recommended that the petitioner be dismissed from service as contemplated under Rule 6 of GCSR (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The said recommendation was accepted and by the impugned order dated 23.2.1992; the petitioner came to be dismissed from service. The petitioner's Counsel has stated that the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation. Re:- Application dated 16.4.1987 As mentioned earlier, the Advocate of the petitioner attacked the said application and the motive behind the said application. So as to attack the said application, the petitioner's Counsel also relied upon the evidence of the department's witness viz. Mr. Teradesai. He submitted that the application was motivated and was created by 3-4 Advocates who were dissatisfied with the petitioner and had grudge against her since she had passed orders against their clients. So as to attack the said application, the petitioner's Counsel also relied upon the evidence of the department's witness viz. Mr. Teradesai. He submitted that the application was motivated and was created by 3-4 Advocates who were dissatisfied with the petitioner and had grudge against her since she had passed orders against their clients. The learned Advocate also submitted that most of the signatories who had purportedly signed the application were misled by the representation that the signatures were being collected to support the demand for installation of a water cooler and on such representation the signatures were collected on a blank paper which was subsequently annexed to the paper containing text of an application which was separately drafted and dated 16.4.1987 and to substantiate the said submission, the petitioner's Advocate repeatedly emphasized that there was not a single signature on the paper which contained the text of the application and all the signatures were on the separate paper, which was annexed to the paper containing text of the application. 12.1 The said submissions have been countered by the learned Advocate for the respondent by referring to the memorandum. The learned Advocate submitted that actually the Court took notice of and acted pursuant to the memorandum (dated 16.12.1987). He further submitted that it was after the preliminary Inquiry that the decision for initiating regular departmental Inquiry was taken. In light of such facts, the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the objections regarding the said application, in the aforesaid factual background, are misconceived and not of much relevance or significance, although the said application also independently (i.e. independent of the memorandum dated 16.12.1987) does point out the grievance against the petitioner's conduct. 12.2 We have noticed that the memorandum and the representation by the Bar Association to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice is what caused the proceedings to commence. By advancing the contention about misrepresentation in obtaining signature, the petitioner has tried to contend that there was no complaint against the petitioner except the grievance made by the 3-4 Advocates (who appeared before the Inquiry Officer). In this context our attention has been drawn by the respondent's Counsel to the Xerox copy of the said application which is placed on record who, then, submitted that a photocopy of the said application was placed on record before the Inquiry Officer also and it was accepted on record as Exh. 64. In this context our attention has been drawn by the respondent's Counsel to the Xerox copy of the said application which is placed on record who, then, submitted that a photocopy of the said application was placed on record before the Inquiry Officer also and it was accepted on record as Exh. 64. On perusal of the said photo(xerox) copy of the application, it is noticed that on the first page i.e. the page which contains the text of the application, there are about seven signatures on the left hand side margin. Further, from the evidence of petitioner's witness viz. Mr. K. M. Bhatt, it emerges that the said application was forwarded to the District Judge also. 12.3 Besides this, it is also relevant that the petitioner's Counsel has not made any grievance or raised any objection against the memorandum dated 16.12,1987 although the memorandum contained reference of the said earlier application dated 16.4.1987. Even in their evidence before the Inquiry Officer none of the defence witnesses have said anything against the memorandum and its contents. The memorandum dated 16.12.1987 recites that since no action after the application dated 16.4.1987 was taken, though it was forwarded to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the learned District Judge, the Advocates had to resort to strike and submit the memorandum. 12.4 The sum total of the defence on the ground of the complaint i.e. the application dated 16.4.1987 is that the text of the said complaint was concocted by a coterie of the Advocates who appeared before the Inquiry Officer and actually there was no complaint against her and that therefore the Inquiry Officer should not have taken the said complaint into consideration. 12.5 The said line of defence dos not have any merits inasmuch as the complaint was submitted to the learned District Judge also. Further the memorandum contains reference of the earlier complaint dated 16.4.1987 but does not contain any averment which would suggest that the said complaint was the brainchild of only few Advocates and the signatures purportedly made in support of the complaint against her were made on misrepresentation. 12.6 On the contrary the representative of the Bar Association called on the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and submitted the memorandum which was apparently signed by about 16 Advocates. 12.6 On the contrary the representative of the Bar Association called on the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and submitted the memorandum which was apparently signed by about 16 Advocates. The representatives who called on the Hon'ble the Chief Justice included the then Secretary of the Bar (i.e. petitioner's witness Mr. K.M. Bhatt). 12.7 The Inquiry Officer rightly posed the question that if there was no truth or substance in the grievance against the petitioner and if no one (except 3-4 Advocates, as alleged by the petitioner) had any complaint against the petitioner then why the Bar Association would at all submit the memorandum containing grievance against the petitioner and/or make representation before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The need for such action is, in itself, ample evidence of grievance against petitioner. Further, no allegations or submissions against the memorandum dated 16.12.1987 or its contents have been made and it has not been assailed also on any ground, much less on similar grounds as the application dated 16.4.1987. Besides this, the memorandum dated 16.12.1987 also contain similar grievance against petitioner as were in the application. 12.8 Thus, on overall consideration of the aspects related to the said application, we do not find any error in the Inquiry Officer referring to the said application and we are also not inclined to agree with petitioner's Counsel that in absence of any substance in the application the basis of the action against the petitioner was lost and/or that the Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the objections against the said application and erred in proceeding further in the matter in light of the said application. Since the reference of most of the instances mentioned in the application dated 16.4.1987 are also found in the memorandum dated 16.12.1987 and in view of the factual aspects discussed above, we do not find substance in the grievance made by the petitioner's Counsel on the basis of the application and/or against the Inquiry Officer. Re:- "No evidence Case?" 9. SINCE, the petitioner's Counsel has raised contention against the impugned order on the ground of want of evidence or sufficiency of evidence, it would be appropriate to traverse the statements-evidence of the witnesses examined before the Inquiry Officer. 13.1 Taking first the evidence of department's witness No.1 viz. Re:- "No evidence Case?" 9. SINCE, the petitioner's Counsel has raised contention against the impugned order on the ground of want of evidence or sufficiency of evidence, it would be appropriate to traverse the statements-evidence of the witnesses examined before the Inquiry Officer. 13.1 Taking first the evidence of department's witness No.1 viz. P. G. Bhavsar, it emerges, from his deposition that he had mentioned some instances about the manner in which the petitioner conducted certain proceedings and passed orders in those matters. He expressly stated that in the Court of the petitioner an Advocate named Mr. S. A. Shaikh would get desired orders and in the cases where said Advocate Mr. Shaikh appeared, the petitioner would accept even professional surety for bail. He also stated that in certain cases, the petitioner would pass orders even without hearing the Government Pleader and there was discontent amongst Government Pleaders Mr. Raj and Mr. Shukla. He also stated that in certain cases the petitioner used to drop the witnesses and close the evidence by observing that there was no need to issue summons again. He also expressly made reference of Mr. Arvindbhai Shah and stated that Mr. Arvindbhai Shah was active in the Court premises and there were professional relation between Mr. Arvindbbhai Shah and Advocate Mr. S.A. Shaikh, who used to accept and attend the cases/briefs brought to him by Mr. Shah. Mr. Bhavsar also stated before the Inquiry Officer that the said Mr. Arvindbhai Shah used to visit the chamber of the petitioner and some time on holidays he was seen at the residence of the petitioner. Mr. Bhavsar also stated that when he had visited the. house of the petitioner for urgent orders, he had seen Mr. Arvindbhai Shah at the house of the petitioner. He also stated before the Inquiry Officer that due to the conduct of the petitioner and one other Judge the Advocates had to resort to strike with a demand to remove the corrupt persons. The said witness also stated in his deposition that after the said application was made, the petitioner had summoned some of the Advocates from amongst the signatories including Ms. Vani, to her chamber and said that why were the Advocates making grievance against her when some of the Advocates on their own gave gifts to her. The said witness also stated in his deposition that after the said application was made, the petitioner had summoned some of the Advocates from amongst the signatories including Ms. Vani, to her chamber and said that why were the Advocates making grievance against her when some of the Advocates on their own gave gifts to her. According to the said witness, the petitioner had even mentioned name of one of the Advocates (viz. Mr. Pendenkar) while voicing her grievance that he who had brought cashew nuts when he had been to Goa, was raising voice against her. 13.2 The said witness has been subjected to extensive cross- examination by the Advocate representing the petitioner during the Inquiry. This witness, in response to the suggestion or question put during cross-examination, expressly stated that when he put his signature on the application, the paper containing the text was attached to the paper on which signature was put and he also denied the suggestion that the Advocates had put their signatures under the misunderstanding that the application was submitted to demand installation for water cooler. In his cross examination, Mr. Bhavsar stated that he had no personal grievance against the petitioner. He expressly denied the suggestion that Mr. Arvindbhai Shah was the clerk ("Gumasta") of Advocate and stated that he was not Advocates' Clerk. 13.3 The department then examined Ms. Maltiben Vani as witness No.2 who, in her deposition, stated that she was summoned by the petitioner in her chamber and the petitioner had told her that generally it was the opinion of senior lawyers practicing in the criminal Court that Judges were underpaid and therefore, the Advocates should pay some amount from fees of their cases and that one Mr. Bipin Bhatt, a senior lawyer practicing at criminal Court at Vadodara is one of the Advocates, who, according to the petitioner, held such opinion. Ms. Vani stated in her deposition that after broaching such topic with her, the petitioner asked her about her own opinion i.e. what was her opinion on the matter and would she be of any help. Ms. Ms. Vani stated in her deposition that after broaching such topic with her, the petitioner asked her about her own opinion i.e. what was her opinion on the matter and would she be of any help. Ms. Vani, in her statement, before the Inquiry Officer, clarified that by the word "help" (used by the petitioner during the conversation) the petitioner indicated monetary transaction and that she had categorically conveyed to the petitioner that she was not indulging in such practice and that the petitioner should not entertain any idea or any such expectation from her. The said witness narrated one instance in which case, she was appearing on "transfer pursis" (proxy) for another Advocate who was originally engaged in the matter and that when the petitioner learnt that she was going to appear in the case, she was summoned by the petitioner in her chamber and asked why she had taken the said case and the petitioner also suggested that she should retire from the said case. With reference to the application against the petitioner, witness stated that some time after the said application she had been summoned by the petitioner in the chamber and the petitioner had shown the original application and had asked her that why she had signed the application and the petitioner also told her, that other five to six Advocates had already scored off their signatures and she should also score off her signature. The witness also stated that when she asked the petitioner how she had the original application with her, in reply, the petitioner had informed that the Secretary of the Bar Association (i.e. Mr. K.M. Bhatt) was her confidant and she could get whichever paper she would want. This witness also stated, that when she refused to score off her signature, the petitioner got annoyed and commented that it was strange that the Advocates were raising the campaign against her and signing the application after presenting, on their own, gifts to her. The witnesses stated that the petitioner also told her that one Advocate had given her one kilogram of cashew nuts and another Advocate had given her a Sumeet mixture while third Advocate had given her a set of Anjali kitchen set worth about Rs.950/- . The witness also said that when such conversation took place, another Advocate Mr. The witnesses stated that the petitioner also told her that one Advocate had given her one kilogram of cashew nuts and another Advocate had given her a Sumeet mixture while third Advocate had given her a set of Anjali kitchen set worth about Rs.950/- . The witness also said that when such conversation took place, another Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel was present and he was also asked to score off his signature. The witness stated that the petitioner got annoyed by the refusal and threatened that she would make it hard for them to practice in her Court. This witness, also stated that the news about Advocates' protest against corrupt practices were appearing in the newspaper and upon reading one such news item, one Mr. Tulsidas Patel, who was studying with her, had told her that he had prepared dining sets worth Rs.4,000/- each and Advocate Mr. Shaikh had gifted the said sets to the petitioner and Mr. Dalai who was a Magistrate in the First Court and that he was saddened when instead of carrying the dining set with her, the petitioner had sold it off for about Rs.2500/. 13.4 In her cross-examination, the said witness was put questions by petitioner's Advocate with regard to the application dated 16.4.1987. She admitted that she had put the signature on the second page. She denied the suggestion that the signatures were obtained on representation that it was meant for the demand to install a water cooler and that the application dated 16.4.1987 was concocted and the paper with the signatures was latter on annexed to the said application. She also stated that she was alone with the petitioner in the chamber when the petitioner brought out the subject of the opinion of senior Advocates that the Advocates should make monetary contribution, and that as per her understanding the petitioner had opened such conversation with a view to testing her inclination. She, however, admitted that she did not inform any one, including the District Judge, about such conversation. During her cross- examination the witness denied the suggestion that actually it was she who had tried to test the petitioner by requesting to favourably consider one of the cases in which she was to appear since she was to get good amount for fees. During her cross- examination the witness denied the suggestion that actually it was she who had tried to test the petitioner by requesting to favourably consider one of the cases in which she was to appear since she was to get good amount for fees. She denied the suggestion that she was making allegation against the petitioner out of personal grudge as the petitioner did not give favourable order to her. 13.5 The department then examined one Mr. Shailesh H. Patel, Advocate as the third witness before the Inquiry Officer. The said witness also narrated certain instances in which improper orders or other than normal or routine orders were passed by the petitioner. The said witness also stated that generally in cases where the accused surrenders, the Court would pass order directing that the accused should be taken to judicial custody or the Court would grant remand after hearing the Investigating Officer, however, in the petitioner's Court, if the Advocate of her choice appeared, orders to not to arrest the accused would be passed. The said witness also stated that from the conduct of the petitioner he had observed that the petitioner was favoring certain Advocate(s) and the accused who were represented by such Advocate(s) would get favorable orders and would be released on bail easily. He also stated that against the conduct of the petitioner, the Advocates had given an application to the President of the Bar Association and he was one of the signatories to the said application. He also stated that somehow the application had reached the hands of the petitioner and thereafter he was summoned to her chamber and that in the petitioner's chamber he saw that Advocate Mr. Gautam Patel and Advocate Ms. Vani were also summoned and the petitioner asked them to score off of the signatures in support of the application. He stated that said Gautam Patel had scored off his signatures and that when he and Ms. Vani refused to score off the signatures the petitioner told them that she was not asking for the gifts but the Advocates were presenting the gifts. This witness also stated that the petitioner told them that one Advocate had given her one kilogram cashewnut and another Advocate had given a set of Anjali kitchen set. He also expressly mentioned, about the petitioner's relations or contacts with Mr. This witness also stated that the petitioner told them that one Advocate had given her one kilogram cashewnut and another Advocate had given a set of Anjali kitchen set. He also expressly mentioned, about the petitioner's relations or contacts with Mr. Arvind Shah and stated that said Arvind Shah is a tout and gets cases for Advocate(s) and that while Shri N. B. Patel was the District Judge, he had issued office order restraining said Mr. Arvind Shah from entering the Court premises. This witness also expressly stated that said Mr. Arvind Shah was seen in the chamber of the petitioner and he would sit in front of the petitioner and smoke beedi in her chamber and that, therefore, the Advocates felt that the petitioner had intimate relations with said Mr. Arvind Shah. The witness also stated that when the petitioner was posted at Vadodara, during initial time her house was scantly furnished, however, within short span of about two years, she had purchased items like colour television, fridge, VCR, etc. and that he knew about such things because he used to go to the petitioner's residence (on holidays) for urgent orders. This witness also said that the petitioner had sold her old moped (Luna moped) and purchased a new one and had also employed a maidservant whom she paid Rs.300 per month. 13.6 In his cross-examination, the witness agreed that he had no personal knowledge about the petitioner's source of funds with which she had purchased colour television, fridge, etc. He also admitted that he had not made any complaint against the petitioner at any time before signing the application. The witness denied the suggestion that he had signed the application without reading the same. He clarified that he knew about the salary of maidservant because he was representing her husband in maintenance case. The witness also denied the suggestion that he was making incorrect allegations against the petitioner. 13.7 The fourth witness examined by the department Advocate Mr. Amirmiya N. Sopariwala stated that to attend his cases listed in petitioner's Court he had to attend the petitioner's Court and sometimes he had to go to petitioner's chamber also and that a tout named Mr. Arvind Shah and Advocate Mr. Shaikh were often seen in the petitioner's chamber. 13.7 The fourth witness examined by the department Advocate Mr. Amirmiya N. Sopariwala stated that to attend his cases listed in petitioner's Court he had to attend the petitioner's Court and sometimes he had to go to petitioner's chamber also and that a tout named Mr. Arvind Shah and Advocate Mr. Shaikh were often seen in the petitioner's chamber. The witness, however, admitted in his cross-examination that in his earlier statement he had not made reference of petitioner's relations with Mr. Shah or with Advocate Mr. Shaikh. During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Mr. Arvind Shah had never gone to the chamber of the petitioner and that he was giving false evidence at the instance of Mr. Teredesai and Ms. Vani. 13.8 As the last witness, the department examined Mr. Teredesai who, in his statement before the Inquiry Officer, stated that he had occasions to attend petitioner's chamber in connection with his cases and during couple of such visits, he had seen Mr. Arvind Shah coming out of the petitioner's chamber along with Advocate Mr. Shaikh. He also stated that though he was not stopped by the peon from entering the petitioner's chamber, various other Advocates were being stopped from entering petitioner's chamber when Mr. Shaikh or Mr. Shah would be in her chamber. This witness also narrated instances wherein the petitioner, in his view, made improper orders. He agreed that the application to the President of the Bar Association was made on the day on which his application for mudhamaal was rejected by the petitioner and that on about two occasions when he had gone to the petitioner's residence for urgent orders, he had not seen Mr. Shah at her residence. He denied the suggestion that the application dated 16.4.1987 was made due to grudge against the petitioner because she had not passed order in his client's favour. 10. UPON conclusion of the oral evidence by the department, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and gave her statement. She denied all allegations against her and stated that she was victimized and the complaint against her was concocted by few Advocates because she had not passed orders of their choice in their matters. 10. UPON conclusion of the oral evidence by the department, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and gave her statement. She denied all allegations against her and stated that she was victimized and the complaint against her was concocted by few Advocates because she had not passed orders of their choice in their matters. With regard to the charge that she had purchased certain movable items/articles during her tenure at Vadodara and failed to give intimation under Rule 19 of GCBR, she stated before the Inquiry Officer that when she assumed the charge at Vadodara, she already owned the colour television, which was purchased by her husband in 1984 and while in Vadodara she had purchased one refrigerator in 1986 for which she had availed loan of Rs.3200/- from Unnati Cooperative Bank and repaid the said loan in three to four installments because her husband did not approve her action of taking loan and therefore, she and her husband jointly cleared the loan. As regards the maidservant, she stated before the Inquiry Officer that she was paying her Rs.150/-. She also stated before the Inquiry Officer that while she was in Vadodara her take-home salary, after statutory and other deductions towards Provident Fund, Rent of quarter etc., was Rs.1650/-. She also stated before the Inquiry Officer that the colour television was purchased in 1984 and that for the said purchase deposit of Rs.10,000/- was paid by her husband, although the bill and the receipt were in her name. She admitted during her deposition that at the time when she purchased the refrigerator she did not give necessary intimation to the High Court. She denied that she had accepted any dining table from anyone and then sold it off at Rs.2500/-. She also denied that she had any relations with Mr. Shah and that she had asked Ms. Vani and Mr. Shailesh Patel to score off their signatures. 14.1 Besides giving her own statement-deposition before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner examined three witnesses in her defence. Advocate Mr. Sukhwani, as the first defence witness, stated before the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner used to pass orders after hearing the Advocates and the public prosecutor and that he had put his signature in support of the application dated 16.4.1987 upon being represented that the application was being made to demand facility of water- cooler. Advocate Mr. Sukhwani, as the first defence witness, stated before the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner used to pass orders after hearing the Advocates and the public prosecutor and that he had put his signature in support of the application dated 16.4.1987 upon being represented that the application was being made to demand facility of water- cooler. He also stated that whenever he visited the petitioner's residence for urgent order, he had not seen Mr. Arvind Shah at her residence and that he had also not seen said Mr. Arvind Shah in petitioner's chamber. The said defence witness admitted that Ms. Vani had been practicing regularly in criminal Court since last about eight years. He said that he attends the Courts of all Magistrates and other criminal Courts also and on an average he would attend the petitioner's Court once or twice in a month. He also agreed that whenever he had visited petitioner's residence for any urgent orders, normally the Advocate would be required to wait in the lobby or the front room and sitting there, one cannot be sure about presence of any other person in the house. He also agreed that his table (bethak) in the Court premises is on the ground floor whereas the Court/ chamber of the petitioner is on the southern side of the first floor, thus he cannot have clear idea about the persons visiting petitioner's chamber. He agreed that Mr. Arvind Shah is a tout and he used to give cases to Advocate Mr. Shaikh. He admitted that he had good and friendly relations with Mr. Shaikh. 14.2 Mr. Gautam Patel was examined as second witness on behalf of the petitioner, who also admitted his signature on the application dated 16.4.1987, however, he believed that the application was being made for demanding facility of water cooler and it was on such understanding that he put his signature. He said that he had put his signature on blank paper. This witness admitted that he had seen Mr. Arvind Shah in the premises of criminal Court, however, he had not seen said Mr. Shah sitting in the chamber of the petitioner or in petitioner's Court room. He also agreed that Mr. Arvind Shah works as tout in the criminal Court and used to give cases to Advocate Mr. Shaikh. This witness admitted that he had seen Mr. Arvind Shah in the premises of criminal Court, however, he had not seen said Mr. Shah sitting in the chamber of the petitioner or in petitioner's Court room. He also agreed that Mr. Arvind Shah works as tout in the criminal Court and used to give cases to Advocate Mr. Shaikh. He denied the suggestion that after he was summoned to the petitioner's chamber he was asked to score off the signature and he had scored off his signature. 14.3 As a last witness, Shri K.M. Bhatt was examined on behalf of the petitioner. He said that as a Secretary of the Bar, he had not received any complaint or application in connection with Mr. Arvind Shah complaining that Advocates were not allowed in petitioner's chamber when said Mr. Shah would be in the chamber. He, however, agreed that Advocate Mr. Shaikh was accepting cases given by Mr. Shah, and that said Mr. Shah was not a registered clerk of any Advocate including Mr. Shaikh and that during the tenure of Shri N.V. Patel, learned District Judge an application against said Mr. Shah was submitted, however, in absence of any affidavit, further proceedings could not be taken up in that regard. The said witness also admitted that the Bar Association had received complaint against three Judges, including Shri Solanki and the petitioner and that it was resolved by the Association to make the representation to the High Court. He also admitted that the memorandum prepared by the Bar Association was submitted to the High Court and in the said memorandum; there were allegations against three Judges including the petitioner and Shri Solanki. He admitted that his table where he sits in the premises of the criminal Court is on the ground floor, whereas the Court and the chamber of the petitioner are on the first floor and therefore, he cannot have clear idea about the persons visiting the petitioner in her chamber. During his cross- examination, he denied the suggestions in connection with various instances mentioned by other witnesses in which orders favorable to the clients represented by him or his brother, were passed by the petitioner. He also denied the suggestion that he was giving evidence in favour of the petitioner because she had passed orders in favour of his clients. During his cross- examination, he denied the suggestions in connection with various instances mentioned by other witnesses in which orders favorable to the clients represented by him or his brother, were passed by the petitioner. He also denied the suggestion that he was giving evidence in favour of the petitioner because she had passed orders in favour of his clients. 14.4 The aforesaid is the gist of the oral evidence available on the record of the Inquiry Officer. At this stage and in view of the scope and nature of this proceeding, we are not required to analyse, examine and re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence; however, we have made reference of the evidence in some detail because the petitioner's Counsel has claimed that present case is a "no evidence case". 14.5 We have seen, on perusal of the report of the Inquiry Officer and from the above discussed evidence, that the Inquiry Officer framed about seven issues and has elaborately discussed and analyzed the evidence as well as the submissions of petitioner's councel. In our view that part of the Inquiry Officer's reasoning where he has not accepted petitioner's defence on the ground that a woman would tend to discuss and "brag about" such topics, is not proper and the petitioner's defence ought not have been discarded merely on such view or opinion, however, the Inquiry Officer has considered other relevant aspects and not based his conclusion only on such statement. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that in her statement Ms. Vani stated before the Inquiry Officer that at the time when the petitioner mentioned about the gifts being presented to her by some Advocates, another Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel was present and that in his separate statement-deposition, said Advocate Mr. Patel also mentioned about such conversation by the petitioner in her chamber. We have also noticed the explanation given by Ms. Vani, in response to the question put to her in cross-examination that the petitioner probably brought up such topic so as to test her inclinations and to find out as to whether she would be a party to such actions or not or she could be of any help or not. 14.6 Even if the Inquiry Officer's above referred reasoning is not given weightage then also the other reasons recorded by the Inquiry Officer and/or the balance part of the statement of Ms. 14.6 Even if the Inquiry Officer's above referred reasoning is not given weightage then also the other reasons recorded by the Inquiry Officer and/or the balance part of the statement of Ms. Vani before the Inquiry Officer, particularly the instances mentioned by her where the petitioner is said to have passed some improper orders and where she mentioned about the petitioner summoning her and Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel and asked them to score off the signatures put by them in support of the application and the reference that the petitioner had, with irritation, said that on one hand the Advocates, on their own, were giving gifts to her without any demand from her side and on the other hand they were making grievance against her in the meeting, cannot be discounted or overlooked and they cumulatively justify his conclusion and we cannot hold that the Inquiry Officer committed any error in taking note of and in relying on the evidence of Ms. Vani. 14.8 As noticed above, substantial part of the statement of Ms. Vani also finds corroboration in the statement of Advocate Mr. Patel. In this view of the matter we do not see strong reason to disbelieve or ignore Ms. Vani's statement. Thus, even though we do not accept the reasoning and the view of the Inquiry Officer that a woman would tend to discuss or, to use the Inquiry Officer's phrase "brag about" the subjects which would not be discussed by others, we will not be justified in holding that the final conclusion of the Inquiry Officer which takes note of and is based on evidence of Ms. Vani, which, in turn, is corroborated by evidence of other witnesses and particularly statement of Advocate Mr. Patel should be disregarded or should not be relied on. 14.9 Besides the evidence of Ms. Vani, we have before us the statements- evidence of Advocate Mr. Bhavsar, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel, Advocate Mr. Sopariwala and Advocate Mr. Teredesai which have been taken into account by the Inquiry Officer. In his separate and independent statement, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel also has mentioned that the petitioner claimed that without her asking anyone, the Advocates had been presenting gifts to her and that the petitioner had asked him to score off the signature on the application. He has also made reference of Mr. Arvind Shah. In his separate and independent statement, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel also has mentioned that the petitioner claimed that without her asking anyone, the Advocates had been presenting gifts to her and that the petitioner had asked him to score off the signature on the application. He has also made reference of Mr. Arvind Shah. The other witnesses of the department have also stated about the different treatment Advocate Mr. Shaikh used to get in petitioner's Court and about the orders which the petitioner used to pass when particular Advocate appeared in her Court. In view of the statements of all these witnesses before the Inquiry Officer, it cannot be said that this case is in the category of "no evidence case". 14.10 Further, it is pertinent that even the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner have admitted that Mr. Arvind Shah is a tout and was giving cases to Advocate Mr. Shaikh and complaints against Mr. Arvind Shah were made during the tenure of Shri N.V. Patel, the District Judge. All the three witnesses on behalf of the petitioner, have also agreed that in view of the position of their tables in the Court premises, they would not know who visited the petitioner in her chamber. The petitioner's Counsel submitted that Mr. Teredesai got the complaint against the petitioner made on the day (i.e. on 16.4.1987) after his application for muddamal was disallowed by the petitioner, however, the petitioner's Counsel had no defence or explanation with regard to the memorandum dated 16.12.1987 and/or the evidence by Advocate Mr. Bhavsar, Advocate Mr. Sopariwala and Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel. Actually, no objection or submission with regard to the memorandum dated 16.12.1987 have been made, though the said memorandum also contained most of the grievances and complaints which were in the application dated 16.4.1987. In view of the above-said position regarding evidence available on the record before the Inquiry Officer, we are satisfied to hold that there was sufficient evidence-material available on the record before the Inquiry Officer to arrive at the conclusions and we are also convinced that present case cannot be put in the league of "no evidence case". Re:- Inquiry Officer's conclusions:- The above discussion takes us to the contention that the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer are not correct and justified. 11. Re:- Inquiry Officer's conclusions:- The above discussion takes us to the contention that the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer are not correct and justified. 11. BEFORE proceeding further we deem it appropriate, at this stage to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Shashikant S. Patil reported in AIR 2000 SC 22 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in para 16, held that:- "The Division Bench of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/ Disciplinary Authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of departmental Authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such Inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the Inquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution." 16.1 We may, in light of the above mentioned guiding principles now turn to the finding-report of the Inquiry Officer and the conclusions recorded therein. The Inquiry Officer, after recording the rival contentions, framed the issues in light of the material on record including petitioner's reply to the chargesheet. The issues framed by the Inquiry Officer are as follows:- 1. Is it proved that while the delinquent was working as 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vadodara, she had demanded illegal gratification from the Advocates on the ground that she has as a Judicial Officer is not adequately paid? 2. The issues framed by the Inquiry Officer are as follows:- 1. Is it proved that while the delinquent was working as 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vadodara, she had demanded illegal gratification from the Advocates on the ground that she has as a Judicial Officer is not adequately paid? 2. Is it proved that she used to accept illegal gratification in the form of gifts and present from certain Advocates practicing in her Court at Vadodara? 3. Is it proved that while she was working at Baroda she had thick relations with one Arvindbhai Shah, a tout and also with an Advocate Shri S.A. Shaikh, who used to get the matters through the said tout and further that Mr. Arvind Shah and Advocate Mr. Shiekh were often found present in her chamber as well as her residence and other Advocates were not allowed to enter her chamber when the said Mr. Shah was in her chamber? 4. A-Is it proved that during her tenure at Baroda, Mrs. S.S. Desai had purchased colour T.V., a V.C.R., a Refrigerator and Sumeet Mixer? 4. B-Is it proved that during her tenure at Baroda Mrs. S.S. Desai had sold her Luna vehicle and had purchased new one? 4.C-Is it proved that looking to her salary as a Judicial Officer she would not have afforded to purchase these articles? 4. D-Is it proved that she had not complied with the provisions of Rule 19 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971, by not giving intimation to the Hon'ble High Court about the aforesaid transactions? 5. Is it proved that the above acts of Mrs. S.S. Desai tantamount to acts unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and acts of grave misconduct which are violative of the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. 6. Are the charges or any of the charges levelled against the delinquent established? 7. What order? 16.2 The Inquiry Officer has, then recorded his conclusions with regard to each of the issues and as per his findings the issues have been replied in affirmative. The Inquiry Officer has recorded his point- wise reasons in his report dated 25.4.1991. 6. Are the charges or any of the charges levelled against the delinquent established? 7. What order? 16.2 The Inquiry Officer has, then recorded his conclusions with regard to each of the issues and as per his findings the issues have been replied in affirmative. The Inquiry Officer has recorded his point- wise reasons in his report dated 25.4.1991. 16.3 From the findings-report of the Inquiry Officer it transpires that the Inquiry Officer considered that the petitioner defended the charge No. 1 on the ground that the say of the witness No. 2 was unnatural, inasmuch as no corrupt person/judge would call an Advocate and discuss such subject in the chamber. The petitioner also urged that witness No. 2 gave evidence out of grudge against the petitioner. The petitioner's defence on the ground that witness No. 2 Ms. Vani gave an evidence before the Inquiry Officer out of grudge because she had passed an order against the client for whom she was appearing, has not been accepted by the Inquiry Officer. 16.4 In our considered view the defence of the petitioner is not convincing and/or persuading. Further even otherwise the defence that the witness No. 2 gave evidence against her out of grudge since she had passed an order against the client for whom witness No. 2 had appeared, is not appealing and does not deserve to be accepted for the reason that it is the stock and the standard defence which the petitioner has advanced with regard to all the 5 witnesses examined by the department. 16.5 Besides, the said submission also sounds hollow inasmuch as in various matters Courts would pass orders against the clients for whom witness No. 2 might be appearing, however that does not mean that witness No. 2, (and for that matter other witnesses/Advocates also) as an Advocate, would start holding and nurturing grudge against all the Judges who pass orders against the clients represented by her. A few orders against the client represented by a particular Advocate would not make any Advocate, hold grudge and give evidence against a Judge in a matter where the career of the Judge is likely to be affected. A few orders against the client represented by a particular Advocate would not make any Advocate, hold grudge and give evidence against a Judge in a matter where the career of the Judge is likely to be affected. Further, in present case the matter in which witness No. 2 appeared and with reference to which the petitioner has alleged that the witness No. 2 deposed against her was not even her (i.e. of witness No. 2) case inasmuch as in the said case the witness No. 2 appeared on "transfer pursis" (proxy) at the request of another Advocate. Thus, it was not her own case/brief and that therefore, the claim of the petitioner that it was Ms. Vani who had approached her with a request to pass favourable orders because she was going to get good fees in the said case, is not palatable. 16.6 From the statement of the witness No. 2 one of the explanations as to the query why petitioner would discuss such a matter, comes out which is that the petitioner was probably testing and trying her as to whether she would be amenable to such practice or not. There is nothing unnatural in the action of witness No. 2 of not reporting such discussion with petitioner to anyone else including the President of Bar, because unless the witness No. 2 was aware that there could be other Advocates also with whom the petitioner might have discussed such issues, the witness No. 2 may not be willing and ready to be the first one to start such topic in the bar but when other complaints started to pour-in, and when she had to give evidence in the Inquiry proceedings she mentioned about what had transpired between the petitioner and her. Further, the Inquiry Officer has also recorded that when general complaint is lodged, it would mean that substantial number of members of Bar must have ventilated some or other grievances, and that merely because the witness No.2 did not mention any particular instance in the complaint, it cannot be assumed that she subsequently concocted those instances. It also needs to be noted that so as to justify her defence, the petitioner claimed that witness No. 2 was not practicing in the Criminal Court. It also needs to be noted that so as to justify her defence, the petitioner claimed that witness No. 2 was not practicing in the Criminal Court. The petitioner intended to urge that she would not discuss such an issue with a stranger or an Advocate who is not regularly practicing in the Court. However, from the material on record the Inquiry Officer has noticed that Ms. Vani had been, at the material point of time, practicing in the Criminal Court since about seven years and was also attending the Court of the petitioner. The factual aspect that Ms. Vani had been practicing in the Court since about seven years is stated even by the petitioner's witness viz. Advocate Mr. Sukhwani. The Inquiry Officer has recorded that if the petitioner's version that the witness No. 2 had tried to establish intimacy with her by procuring full time maidservant for her and by selecting or suggesting ladies' tailor and by accompanying her to the house of Advocate Mr. Bhave for "Besna", is accepted then it would lead to the conclusion that the petitioner had such intimacy with witness No. 2 that she could have very well discussed with witness No. 2 the subject alleged in charge No. 1. Thus, after properly evaluating the statement of witness No. 2 and after considering the explanation by the witness No. 2 and the material on record, the Inquiry Officer has found the evidence of witness No. 2 acceptable. We do not see any error in Inquiry Officer's decision nor do we find any compelling reason to disagree with and upset the conclusion of Inquiry Officer. 16.7 So far as the charge/point No. 1 is concerned the Inquiry Officer has recorded his reasons. He has taken into account the submissions of the petitioner and for the reasons recorded by him, he has not accepted the submissions of the petitioner. Considering the aspects attached to the evidence of witness No. 2 and the defence of the petitioner, we do find substance in the reasons recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer does not appear to be unjustified or in any error in holding that the charge No. 1 is proved. 12. Considering the aspects attached to the evidence of witness No. 2 and the defence of the petitioner, we do find substance in the reasons recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer does not appear to be unjustified or in any error in holding that the charge No. 1 is proved. 12. SO far as the second charge is concerned, the Inquiry Officer has, arrived at and recorded the conclusions after referring to the evidence of witness No. 2, and witness No. 3 who have, inter alia, stated that they were summoned by the petitioner in her chamber in connection with an application given to the Bar Association against her and that they were asked to score off their signatures. It is not necessary to repeat the details of evidence which we have noted above. Suffice it to say that the evidence of witness No. 2 is corroborated by evidence of respondent No. 3. 17.1 The witness No. 2 also stated that when she asked the petitioner that how the application, reached her, the petitioner said that Mr. Bhatt the Secretary of Bar was her confidant and she could get any document which she would want. In this context it is appropriate to take note of the fact that one of the witnesses of the petitioner happened to be the said Secretary Mr. Bhatt. The respondent's Counsel is justified in urging that the fact that the Secretary of the Bar came as a witness and in defence of the petitioner, speaks volumes. 17.2 In view of the Inquiry Officer there is no reason to doubt the statement of witness No. 2, wherein she has mentioned about petitioner's remarks, more so when Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel also mentioned similar details in his statement. We do not find any justifiable and convincing ground to discard, in respect of this charge, the evidence of the two witnesses and/or to disagree with the Inquiry Officer on the standard and stock defence of the petitioner that the said witnesses gave evidence against her because they had grievance against her more particularly when the details given by witness No. 2 about the remarks made by the petitioner get connected with the appearance of the then Secretary of the Bar as petitioner's witness. The contention that neither the names of the Advocates who presented gifts to the petitioner are forthcoming nor such persons have been examined as witnesses and therefore, it cannot be held that the charge is proved or that in absence of such material evidence, the charge could not be held as proved, is not appealing inasmuch as in the statement of Mr. Bhavsar and Ms. Vani atleast two names, in connection with the charge nos. 1 and 2, are disclosed i.e. of Mr. Pandnekar and Mr. Bhatt. Further the names of the Advocates who presented gifts would be within the personal knowledge of the petitioner and if she did not disclose identity of the persons, then the witnesses would not know the names of the persons who might have presented gifts to the petitioner. From the evidence of witness No. 2 it also gets established that she and Mr. Shailesh Patel were called in the chamber by the petitioner and the petitioner has failed to give any other convincing reason for calling the said two Advocates in her chamber. 17.3 The Inquiry Officer has referred to and relied upon the said evidence to reach to his findings and conclusions and it is not possible to hold Inquiry Officer committed any error. 17.4 The Inquiry Officer has recorded reasons for not accepting the petitioner's contention that Advocate Mr. Bhavsar's version may not be accepted on the ground that it was hearsay. The Inquiry Officer has recorded that the version given by Advocate Mr. Bhavsar is corroborated by the statements of Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel and that there is no contradiction between the statement given by Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel and Ms. Vani. The Inquiry Officer has recorded that Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel had no axe to grind and merely because the petitioner had passed an order against his client he would not come forward to depose against the petitioner to falsely implicate her. 17.5 When on such comparative analysis of oral evidence the Inquiry Officer reached to a conclusion of accepting one version over the other, no fault can be found with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. 17.5 When on such comparative analysis of oral evidence the Inquiry Officer reached to a conclusion of accepting one version over the other, no fault can be found with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. 17.6 The Inquiry Officer has recorded another reason for not accepting the explanations of the petitioner inasmuch as he has recorded that if the conduct of the petitioner was as good and as transparent and without blemish as claimed then why would the Bar Association call a meeting in order to decide as to whether the representation should be made against the petitioner also and why would the Bar Association submit any memorandum-representation to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice against the petitioner also (along with the complaint against other two Judges). 17.7 Upon totality of such findings the Inquiry Officer has held that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of Mr. Shailesh Patel, Ms. Vani and also of Mr. Bhavsar. The Inquiry Officer has also recorded that it is but natural that the person who presented gifts to the petitioner would not come forward and admit that he had given gift to a judge and that merely because the department could not examine such persons, the evidence given by two Advocates need not be discarded. Hence, the inability of the department to examine such persons as the witnesses cannot help and cannot be used by the petitioner to urge that in absence of evidence of such persons the charge should not be held as proved. In a departmental Inquiry only preponderance of probability is required and charge is not required to be proved like in the Criminal Trial. As regards the charge No. 3, the department has relied upon the evidence of Advocate Mr. Bhavasar, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel and Advocate Mr. Hamirmiya Sopariwala. The above named three witnesses have stated in their evidence that they had seen Mr. Shah in the chamber of the petitioner and one of the witnesses has even stated that he was found smoking in her chamber. Though the defence witnesses have said that they had not seen Mr. Arvind Shah in the chamber of the petitioner, they have also accepted that in view of the location of the place of their sitting, it was not possible for them to see the ingress or egress from the petitioner's chamber. Even the witnesses of the petitioner accepted that Mr. Arvind Shah in the chamber of the petitioner, they have also accepted that in view of the location of the place of their sitting, it was not possible for them to see the ingress or egress from the petitioner's chamber. Even the witnesses of the petitioner accepted that Mr. Arvind Shah used to give cases, briefs to Mr. Shaikh and he is known as "tout" in the Court premises. 18.1 With regard to the said charge No.3, the Inquiry Officer has referred to the statements given by Advocate Mr. Bhavsar, Advocate Mr. Sopariwala and Advocate Mr. Shaileshbhai Patel which we have noted, in some detail hereinabove earlier. This witness cited few such instances which, as per his assertion, clearly demonstrated the favours which the petitioner was extending towards Advocate Mr. Shaikh. This witness stated that Mr. Arvindbhai Shah frequently visited the chamber and the residence of the petitioner and that he had seen Mr. Shah at petitioner's residence. Advocate Mr. Shailesh Patel also stated in his statement that in the Court premises Mr. Arvind Shah was known as "tout" and he regularly visited petitioner's chamber and at times he was even seen smoking in petitioner's chamber. This witness also claimed in his statement that the petitioner used to favour certain Advocates and Advocate Mr. Shaikh was one Advocate who was favoured by the petitioner. Besides the aforesaid two witnesses, Advocate Mr. Sopariwala also stated in his statement that the petitioner had close relations with Advocate Mr. Shaikh and a tout named Mr. Arvindbhai Shah. The said Witness also stated that Mr. Arvindbhai Shah and Advocate Mr. Shaikh used to sit and chat in petitioner's chamber. ' 18.2 Upon examining the evidence of the said three witnesses, the Inquiry Officer has observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the said witnesses. The Inquiry Officer also took into consideration the statements of the three witnesses examined by the petitioner who stated that they had not seen Mr. Arvindbhai Shah visiting petitioner's chamber. The Inquiry Officer has, however, rightly taken note of the fact that the petitioner's witnesses also accepted that in view of their place of sitting they would not be in a position to know whether Mr. Arvindbhai Shah was visiting the petitioner's chamber or not. In light of such evidence the further evidence as to how Advocate Mr. The Inquiry Officer has, however, rightly taken note of the fact that the petitioner's witnesses also accepted that in view of their place of sitting they would not be in a position to know whether Mr. Arvindbhai Shah was visiting the petitioner's chamber or not. In light of such evidence the further evidence as to how Advocate Mr. Shaikh found favour in the Court of the petitioner deserves to be considered. The witnesses of the department have mentioned instances to demonstrate how different treatment Mr. Shaikh used to get in the Court of the petitioner. 18.3 Thus, the petitioner's contention that the Inquiry Officer has fallen in error in not accepting that the allegations were made only by 3-4 Advocates and that too out of grudge against her does not appeal to us. 13. -SO far as the charge No. 4 is concerned, it is necessary to note at the outset that at the relevant point of time the requirement of intimating the Government about the purchases of any item/property was, as per Rule 19, in respect of the property of value of Rs. 1,000/- or more and from August 1984 the limit was raised from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- and in December 1988 the limit came to be revised from Rs. 2,000/ - to Rs.10,000/-. It is in light of the said requirement under the Rule that the petitioner's defence is required to be examined. In respect of her certain purchases, particularly the Refrigerator and the Moped, the petitioner claimed that she believed that the intimation was required to be made in respect of property worth Rs.5,000/- or more and that therefore she had not given the intimation. The said explanation deserved to be rejected in view of provision of Rule 19. The Inquiry Officer has also taken note of the evidence on record that the best evidence namely passbook of her and her husband's account was in petitioner's possession and she could have produced the same on record to demonstrate that she had sufficient income and funds, jointly with her husband or in her own account, by which she could afford the purchases. However the petitioner did not bring such evidence on record. However the petitioner did not bring such evidence on record. 19.1 SO far as the factum of purchases is concerned, the petitioner raised dispute only regarding VCR and claimed that she had not purchased and she did not own VCR at the material point of time and with regard to the Television she claimed that it was purchased in 1984 by her husband. The documents on record revealed that the bill and receipt are in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to dispel the said anomaly and she merely claimed that the purchase was made by her husband. The failure to give intimation has been admitted by the petitioner, but she sought to explain the same, as aforesaid, by stating that she believed it was not necessary as the value of the purchases in each case was less than Rs.5,000/-. When the provision clearly required declaration in respect of purchase worth Rs. 2,000/- or more and when undisputedly the declaration was not made it cannot be said that the Inquiry Officer committed any error in holding that the charge was proved. Thus, with regard to the point No. 4 (a) (b) and (c) also the Inquiry Officer has discussed and analyzed the evidence obtaining on record before him and after comparative analysis of the evidence and submissions of both sides, he has recorded his conclusions. 19.2 The Inquiry Officer has noted the contradiction between what the petitioner stated in paragraph 8 of her written reply dated 24.7.1990 and the statement she made by way of deposition during the Inquiry inasmuch as he has noticed that while in the written reply the petitioner claimed that loan of Rs.3300/- was cleared in seven or eight monthly installments but upon examining her oral evidence/ cross examination and the entries in exhibit 70/6, Inquiry Officer noticed that the loan amount was cleared by the petitioner between 11.3.1985- 30.5.1986 i.e. within the period of two months and 24 days and that when the petitioner was confronted with such evidence she took a stand that since her husband did not like that she had availed the loan, hence she had cleared the same in short span of three or four months and that even her husband contributed in clearing the loan. 19.3 On this count the Inquiry Officer has observed that not only the petitioner's said version contradicts her written reply, but she did not substantiate the said subsequent clarification by producing any passbook or Bank statement of her husband's account. The Inquiry Officer has recorded that the petitioner did not produce copy of any letter allegedly addressed to the Registrar of Hon'ble High Court intimating details of her purchases though she had claimed that in January 1988 she had intimated the High Court about the purchase of refrigerator and television. The Inquiry Officer has also discussed the relevant provision under Rule 19 as prevailing at the relevant time and demonstrated how baseless and unjustified petitioner's explanation was. The Inquiry Officer has also observed that as per rules the intimation had to be given within one month from the date of purchase, whereas until complaints were received and were being looked into by the Court the intimation was not given. The Inquiry Officer has, therefore, rightly held that the explanations given by the petitioner were not palatable, particularly in light of the provisions of Rule 19, which the petitioner was supposed to know very well. 14. ON perusal of the report of the Inquiry Officer, we are not able to accept the submissions of the petitioner's Counsel and we are not able to hold that the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer are erroneous or incorrect or not based on any evidence, but are mere' surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the said contention also fails. 20.1 Further the Inquiry Officer has, upon appreciation of the statements by the witnesses, found it appropriate and justified to believe the statements of the witnesses examined by the department. When the Inquiry Officer has upon comparative analysis of the statements-evidence, considered it appropriate to rely upon the said evidence, we, in limited exercise of judicial review, have no reason to hold that the Inquiry Officer was not right or justified in believing the evidence of department's witnesses. When the Inquiry Officer has upon comparative analysis of the statements-evidence, considered it appropriate to rely upon the said evidence, we, in limited exercise of judicial review, have no reason to hold that the Inquiry Officer was not right or justified in believing the evidence of department's witnesses. The Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to the factual findings of the Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority has, in case between Y. P. Sarabhai v. Union Bank of India and another reported in 2006(5) SCC 377 , held that:- "This Court has repeatedly held that the factual finding of the disciplinary authority after holding a detailed enquiry and after going through elaborate evidence is not assailable in the Courts unless the breach of principles of natural justice or the violation of any rules or any material irregularity on the face of record is alleged and shown. However, in this case the High Court in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has again gone into all aspects of the enquiry in detail and has come to the same factual finding as the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority. Such concurrent findings by three different Authorities including the High Court should not be disturbed by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no other option except to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed." 15. WE are not sitting in appeal over the findings and the decision of the Inquiry Officer and it is not within the purview of judicial review to examine the sufficiency of evidence except lack or absence of evidence or to decide about the propriety of Inquiry Officer's decision to believe one piece of evidence over another. 16. AT this stage, we consider it appropriate to refer to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court, on this point, in the judgment between High Court of Judicature, Bombay v Shashikant Patel (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that if the Inquiry has been properly conducted, then, as per the settled legal position, if there is some legal evidence on which findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter to be canvassed before the High Court in petition under Article 226. In present case, a fair and legal Inquiry has been conducted and there has been no dispute or grievance about the legality or propriety of Inquiry and on examination of the material we have already come to the conclusion that this is not a case which can be considered "a no evidence case". 17. WITH regard to the scope of interference by the High Court in jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution with the Hon'ble Apex Court in case between State of U.P. and Another v. Rajkishore Yadav and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 held that :- "...It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed..." (emphasis supplied) 18. IN the facts of the case reference may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in case between Chairman and MD V. S.P. v. Goparaju Shri Prabhakara Hari Babu reported in 2008(5) SCC 569 wherein the Apex Court has in paragraph No. 17 and 17.1 observed as under :- "17. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The Superior Courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (emphasis supplied) 17.1 The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order." Since we have not found any infirmity in the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer and have not been able to convince ourselves to accept that the conclusions are not based on any evidence, we are also not able to hold that the High Court was not justified in recommending the penalty of dismissal. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the penalty recommended by the Court was eminently proper. 19. The contentions do not merit any interference. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the penalty recommended by the Court was eminently proper. 19. The contentions do not merit any interference. Petition does not deserve to be entertained. 20. FOR the reasons recorded above, we are not inclined to accept the petition. The petition fails and deserves to be rejected. The petition is accordingly rejected. No costs. Petition dismissed.