Judgment (S.A. Bobde, J.) Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner, who has been dismissed from judicial service under Rule 5, Sub-Rule (1) of Clause (ix) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 by the Government of Maharashtra by the order dated 23.2.2011, has challenged his dismissal by way of this writ petition. 3. A departmental enquiry was duly conducted after receipt of a complaint by 417 persons from village Kalambusare within the jurisdiction of Uran. The complaint contained allegations that the petitioner has been using his official position to support his brother who was involved in politics. The complaint also contained an allegation that he called meeting of the villagers of his group to instruct and instigate them to give false evidence against the rival group of his brother and that due to this behaviour quarrels frequently took place against the villagers. It was also alleged that the petitioner prevails on the police to register criminal offence against the villagers. A show cause notice was issued, calling upon the petitioner to show cause in respect of the allegations of the complaint. An enquiry was duly conducted. The charges and the findings of the Enquiry Officer against the said charges are as follows:- POINTS FINDINGS 1) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that the delinquent Shri Chandrahas Baliram Mhatre is in the habit of instigating his brother Nandkumar and other family members to quarrel with other villagers of Kalambusare and called meeting of the villagers of his group to instruct and instigate them to lodge false report and give false evidence against rivals and misused his office as Judicial Magistrate to instigate the villagers in indulging destructive and antisocial activities? No 2) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that the delinquent Shri Chandrahas Baliram Mhatre visited police station Uran and instigated the police to lodge the criminal offences against the villagers? Partly yes 3) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that the delinquent Shri Chandrahas Baliram Mhatre met Shri A.P. Kulkarni, the then Judicial Magistrate, Uran in his chamber for 4 to 5 times on working days and got acquitted his brother Nandkumar Baliram Mhatre and other family members for the offences tried against them? Yes. The authority has proved that the delinquent met Shri A.P. Kulkarni, JMFC, Uran in his Chamber on working day on 4 to 5 times. Yes. The authority has proved that the delinquent met Shri A.P. Kulkarni, JMFC, Uran in his Chamber on working day on 4 to 5 times. 4) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that on 7/10/07 at the time of Gram-panchayat election of Kalambusare, his brother Nandkumar and other associates attacked Shri Suresh Raut apprehending that his party namely 'Indrayani Samajik Sanghatana' would win the election and therefore there had been commotion and therefore the complainant Suresh Raut went to police station Uran in the same night to lodge the report against Nandkumar, the brother of delinquent and his associates but he was arrested by police of Uran Police Station on 8/10/07 at 4.00 a.m. on the demand of members of opposite party?Yes 5) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that on 10/10/2007 delinquent Shri C.B. Mhatre went to village Kalambusare and asked his neighbours to give statement against complainant to the effect that he (complainant Suresh Raut) has trespassed the house of his brother Nandkumar and thereafter took his mother Taibai to police station Uran and sat in cabin of Sr.Police Inspector and that Time complainant Suresh Raut went there and told the police inspector that he wants to lodge report against the delinquent and that time mother of the delinquent lodged report against Shri Suresh Raut at his instance and then left the police station, but mother of the delinquent withdrawn the report lodged against Shri Suresh Raut? Yes. But disciplinary Authority has failed to prove that the delinquent instigated his neighbours to give false statements. 6) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that the delinquent Shri C. B. Mhatre sent the complaint application against Shri Suresh Raut and 12 others to Police Commissioner on 3/10/2008 and thereafter they had called upon to attend police station Uran in connection with the enquiry of that application by Shri Ganesh Gaikwad, P.I. On 6/11/2008? Yes 7) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that Shri Kothawale, Senior Police Inspector, Uran Police Station received number of phone calls from Assistant Police Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner of Police and other police officials from Thane and Kalyan requesting to extend necessary help to the delinquent Shri Chandrahas Baliram Mhatre and delinquent had also made telephone calls to Shri Kothawale in connection with the crime registered against Nandkumar and Suresh Raut? Yes 8) Whether the disciplinary authority has proved that Nandkumar Mhatre brother of the delinquent is creating tense atmosphere in the village by taking disadvantage of the fact that delinquent is Judicial Officer and his brother Nandkumar is behaving arrogantly with police and constable? Yes 9) Whether the delinquent's acts amount to grave misconduct and conduct of unbecoming of government servant as a Judicial Officer? Yes 10) What order? Delinquent Shri C. B. Mhatre is held guilty of grave misconduct and a conduct unbecoming of Govt. Servant i.e. Judicial Officer provided in Rule 3 (1)(i) to (iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Conduct), Rule, 1979. 4. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 26.3.2010 with the finding that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct. He answered Point Nos.3, 4 & 6 to 9 in the affirmative, Point No.1 in the negative and Point Nos.2 & 5 partly in the affirmative. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority considered that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence on record and there are no mitigating circumstances on record. It was decided to impose the major penalty of dismissal of the judicial officer from service as prescribed by Rule 5(1)(ix) of the Maharashtra Judicial Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. 5. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings in the enquiry report are vitiated by perversity and are not supported by the evidence on record. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the findings do not warrant the imposition of the extreme penalty of dismissal which, according to the petitioner, is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it may be noted that the petitioner has been found to be guilty of misconduct on two occasions, firstly, on 10.10.2007 he has been found to have visited the Uran Police Station with the purpose of lodging a police complaint against his brother's rival group for threatening his mother and his brother. Secondly, he has been found to have written a letter dated 3.10.2008 (Exhibit 14) i.e. almost after a year of the earlier incident, to the Commissioner of Navi Mumbai alleging several illegal activities of his brother's rival group and stating that they had made a false complaint to the High Court and, therefore, called upon the police to take action against the guilty in case anything goes wrong with the petitioner or his family. 7. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first incident of 10.10.2007 cannot be held against the petitioner at all since the sole motive for visiting the police station was to protect his mother from the threats she had received from his brother's rivals. Mr. Patil submitted that it is not disputed that the petitioner had accompanied the mother and had gone to the police station but only sat in the office of the Police Inspector while his mother had her statement recorded in another room. It was vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioner that the motive was entirely correct and the petitioner was perfectly justified in coming to the aid of his mother since she had received threats. There is substance in the contention of the petitioner. Indeed, if the petitioner felt that the life of his mother, sister or brother was threatened due to a riot like situation which had taken place, he cannot be faulted with for having shown his mother the correct way of seeking protection under the law i.e. by going to the police station. The petitioner, who was, at that time, serving at another place, on being informed of the danger at home, went to Uran and took his mother to the police station. It is, however, interesting to note that the petitioner's visit did not result in any police complaint and the petitioner and his mother apparently came back without lodging any complaint. This is presumably due to the fact that the leader of the rival group was also at the police station and wanted to lodge a complaint, but apparently neither side lodged any complaint. In any case, it might be unreasonable to construe this incident as conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. As regard the second incident, namely, that of writing a letter dated 3.10.2008 i.e. almost a year after the first incident, Mr. In any case, it might be unreasonable to construe this incident as conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. As regard the second incident, namely, that of writing a letter dated 3.10.2008 i.e. almost a year after the first incident, Mr. Patil, the learned counsel submitted that the letter was written only to ensure that the police took action against the petitioner if something adverse happens to him. Though there is a request to that effect in the letter, we find that the circumstances attending the letter do not justify the writing of such a letter at all. In the first place, nothing had happened for a year to the petitioner's mother or brother. The proximate cause for writing the letter is only that the brother's political rival had made a complaint to the High Court regarding the petitioner's conduct which formed the basis of the chargesheet and upon which the High Court had issued the show cause notice to the petitioner. The reason for writing the letter is purely the complaint made by the rivals against the petitioner. The letter refers to many so called illegal activities of the rivals and the entire history of the rivalry and some incidents in the past. There is little doubt that the petitioner was using his office to call upon the police to take action against the rival or to protect himself as a victim after receiving a show cause notice from the court. It hardly expected of a judge to use the police machinery to get even with rivals and that too without any particular incident having taken place but merely because a complaint had been made against him to the High Court. We find, however, that when this letter is seen in the context of the other conduct of the petitioner, referred to in the enquiry report, it brings home the fact that the petitioner used to make attempt to influence the police machinery in his home town. In fact, there is evidence on record in the form of the depositions of the Police Inspector, Uran and some other officials. In the enquiry report, vide para 48, the Enquiry Officer has reproduced the statement of the Police Inspector Kothawale that several officers had asked him to extend his help to the petitioner in case he had any complaint. In fact, there is evidence on record in the form of the depositions of the Police Inspector, Uran and some other officials. In the enquiry report, vide para 48, the Enquiry Officer has reproduced the statement of the Police Inspector Kothawale that several officers had asked him to extend his help to the petitioner in case he had any complaint. In fact, he had also received a call from the Commissioner of Police, who asked him to warn the petitioner's brother's rival one Suresh Raut. Not only this, 2-3 months prior to the alleged incident of rioting and the petitioner's visit to the police station along with his mother, the petitioner had visited the Police Inspector and identified himself as a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, working at Kalyan without specifying any object and intention behind his visit. The Police Inspector further told the Enquiry Officer that he had received a telephonic message from the petitioner on one or two occasions to extend cooperation to some persons. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner's conduct was unbecoming of a government servant under the Rules. 7A. Moreover, we find that there is no warrant for the petitioner to have written a letter one year after the incident, only upon receiving a show cause notice from the High Court, to the Commissioner of Police, highlighting the alleged wrongs of his brother's political rivals and telling the police that they are acting against the petitioner's interest. Though the stated motive of the letter is to set the machinery in motion in case the petitioner faces adverse consequences, there is no doubt that the petitioner was using his official position to influence police machinery. We thus find that the petitioner did act contrary to the conduct expected from a sitting judge and within the meaning of Rule (3) (1)(iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979. 8. Mr. Patil the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer has recorded that the petitioner has been found guilty of misconduct under Clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 3(1). According to the learned counsel, the reference to Clauses (i) and (ii) which deal with integrity and maintenance of devotion of duty is not warranted at all by the earlier findings. According to the learned counsel, the reference to Clauses (i) and (ii) which deal with integrity and maintenance of devotion of duty is not warranted at all by the earlier findings. It is correct that the petitioner has been found guilty only of Clause (iii) and the reference has been made to Clauses (i) to (iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979. Rule 3 reads as follows:- "3. Duty of Government servant to maintain integrity, devotion to duty, etc.-(1) Every Government servant shall at all times- (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. (2) Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority. (3) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior and shall, where he is acting under such direction, obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, he shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible. (4) Nothing in sub-rule (3) shall be construed as empowering a Government servant to evade his responsibilities by seeking instructions from, or approval of, a superior officer or authority when such instructions are not necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities." However, the finding is that the facts amount to "misconduct of grave nature and a conduct unbecoming of Government Servant as provided by Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 on the part of delinquent Shri C.B. Mhatre". Clearly the finding is only in regard to the conduct unbecoming of a government servant which is to be found in Rule 3(1)(iii). A mere reference to Rule 3(1) (i) and (ii) will not vitiate such a finding. It was also submitted by Mr. Clearly the finding is only in regard to the conduct unbecoming of a government servant which is to be found in Rule 3(1)(iii). A mere reference to Rule 3(1) (i) and (ii) will not vitiate such a finding. It was also submitted by Mr. Patil that some observations of the Enquiry Officer show a total non application of mind to the facts of the case and in fact, also contrary to his own finding, such as the Enquiry Officer with reference to incident of 10.10.2007 has observed that the petitioner misused his official position to lodge a complaint against his brother's rival, though there is earlier finding in the same report that the petitioner came back from the police station without lodging any report. The criticism is justified. We, however, do not consider it sufficient to set aside the entire enquiry report or the punishment. 9. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the so called complaint on the basis of which the petitioner was charged and supposedly signed by 417 persons is wholly fabricated. According to the learned counsel the names and signatures of the persons were obtained by the rivals of the petitioner's brother while distributing umbrellas in the course of a political campaign. The learned counsel referred to the depositions of one witness who stated that he had put his signature in token of the receipt of the umbrella received by him. We have considered the said statement and also the other statements on the point, but we find that the evidence does not discredit the complaint at all. The petitioner himself examined the witnesses on the point and the witnesses stated before the Enquiry Officer that they identified their own signatures before the Enquiry Officer and some of them had signed on behalf of their spouse. This evidence does not indicate any falsity in the complaint as alleged, but, on the other hand seems to establish the fact that these persons had signed the complaint on their own behalf as well as on behalf of their spouse. It was lastly urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's conduct could not have been characterized as unbecoming of a government servant and in any case could not warrant the imposition of penalty of dismissal. According to the learned counsel the misconduct, if any, was of a minor nature. It was lastly urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's conduct could not have been characterized as unbecoming of a government servant and in any case could not warrant the imposition of penalty of dismissal. According to the learned counsel the misconduct, if any, was of a minor nature. We are unable to agree with this submission. The petitioner was serving as a judge and who had to decide civil and criminal matters. In the course of his duties, he had to deal with the evidence of police and critically assess the investigation done in criminal cases. He, thus, clearly occupied a position of influence over the police machinery. In these circumstances, we do not see how it was any part of his official duty or judicial duty to call a Police Inspector and other police officers stationed at his home town to seek support for himself or his people and getting his brother's rival warned. This conduct, in our view, runs counter to the character of a judicial officer. 10. In the result, we find no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.