ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–This writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 16th December, 2010 passed by the respondent State dismissing the petitioner, a judicial officer, from service on the recommendation of the Patna High Court on administrative side. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner joined Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service in the capacity of Munsif on 14th October, 1982. He was promoted as Sub Judge in May, 2002. He was further promoted to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate in November, 2005 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. in May, 2006 and was posted at Sitamarhi. 3. While the petitioner was posted at Sitamarhi, the then Inspecting Judge of the Sitamarhi judgeship inspected the judgeship on 17th and 18th May, 2008. The Hon’ble Inspecting Judge, noticing several acts of commission and omission of the petitioner in discharge of his official duties recommended for drastic action against him including initiation of a departmental proceeding. For the sake of convenience, the minutes of inspection in respect of the petitioner recorded by the then Hon’ble Inspecting Judge is reproduced herein which reads as under:– “iv. Shri Sitaram Prasad Additional District & Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. V, Sitamarhi He has joined this station on 2.5.2006. I sat with him in his court on 17.5.2008. He was examining a prosecution witness in ST no.865/06 (State of Bihar Vs. Ganesh Singh) u/s 307 IPC. He was quietly taking down the deposition and did not seem to be very alert and alive to the proceedings. He has so far delivered judgments in 30 contested cases and criminal appeals and revisions, and 136 sessions trial cases all of which have ended in acquittal. He has also delivered 14 contested judgments on the civil side. I have perused his following judgments. 1. Sessions Trial no. 164/2007 33/2007 2. Sessions Trial no. 361/2005 26/2006 3. Sessions Trial no. 203/2008 112/2008 4. Title Appeal no. 60/2006 14/2007 5. Title Appeal no. 17/1992 25/2007 His judgments are abnormally brief, without discussing evidence on record, and shows an extra-ordinary propensity to acquit the accused persons. He enjoys an abnormally bad reputation of integrity, and has the reputation of taking money in as many cases as possible. All his judgments in sessions cases have resulted in acquittal. 60/2006 14/2007 5. Title Appeal no. 17/1992 25/2007 His judgments are abnormally brief, without discussing evidence on record, and shows an extra-ordinary propensity to acquit the accused persons. He enjoys an abnormally bad reputation of integrity, and has the reputation of taking money in as many cases as possible. All his judgments in sessions cases have resulted in acquittal. He has also allowed most of the criminal appeals. He did not follow the procedure prescribed by Section 232 Cr.P.C. while acquitting the accused persons. Furthermore, he has misrepresented to the High Court and has been able to secure far more units than he is entitled. He has the reputation of regularly visiting one Dr. Chandra Shekhar, a local doctor. It is widely believed that all his dealings (regarding judgments and bail orders) take place in the clinic. It is also widely believed that he has illicit relationship with a nurse attached to that clinic. He has also the reputation of a drunkard, and has been noticed unconscious at public places. In view of this position, his continuance in Bihar Judicial Service is of doubtful validity. He is a major scandal in the Sessions Division. I recommend drastic action against him including initiation of a departmental proceeding and he may be placed under suspension. His 136 judgments (apart from the aforesaid five judgments) are enclosed herewith. I have submitted a separate note to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for his kind consideration.” 4. On receipt of the aforesaid inspection report, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 27th November, 2008 by the Patna High Court. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in which memorandum of charge dated 5th May, 2009 coupled with the statement of allegations in support of the charges, list of documents and list of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner. 5. The District Judge, Sitamarhi was made the Inquiry Officer whereas the Judge Incharge, Sitamarhi was made Presenting/Conducting officer in the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding. 6. The articles of charges framed against the petitioner in the said disciplinary proceeding were two fold which read as under:– “(1) That the judgments delivered by Sri Sitaram Prasad are abnormally brief, without discussing evidence on record, and shows an extra-ordinary propensity to acquit the accused persons. 6. The articles of charges framed against the petitioner in the said disciplinary proceeding were two fold which read as under:– “(1) That the judgments delivered by Sri Sitaram Prasad are abnormally brief, without discussing evidence on record, and shows an extra-ordinary propensity to acquit the accused persons. He had delivered judgments in 136 Sessions Trials at Sitamarhi upto 18.5.2008 all of which have resulted in acquittal giving credence of abnormally bad reputation of integrity (List of 136 Sessions Trials is enclosed separately and marked Annexure-I) (2) That Sri Sitaram Prasad misrepresented to the High Court, and has been able to secure far more units than he was entitled. In the 136 Sessions Trials, though there were no evidence, and instead of recording orders of acquittal as per the procedure prescribed in Session 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he had passed judgments of acquittal as contested trials in order to claim higher units. The aforesaid acts on the part of Sri Sitaram Prasad tantamount to gross judicial impropriety, lack of integrity, gross indiscipline, demeaning the majesty of justice, and an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.” 7. On receipt of memorandum of charge, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegations made against him and pleaded his innocence. 8. The Conducting Officer produced the records of altogether 139 cases in which the petitioner had delivered judgments. The records so produced were marked as Exts. 1 to 1/138 by the Inquiry Officer in the proceeding. The Inquiry Officer has dealt with in detail about each and every record exhibited in course of enquiry in his report. 9. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. He also produced certain documents in support of his innocence which too were marked as exhibits. Taking into consideration the materials collected in course of enquiry, the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 5th January, 2010 found both the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. The petitioner was, thereafter, served with a second show cause notice dated 17th February, 2010 issued under the signature of the Registrar General of the Patna High Court along with a copy of the enquiry report seeking explanation from him as to why the enquiry report be not accepted and he be not suitably punished. 10. The petitioner was, thereafter, served with a second show cause notice dated 17th February, 2010 issued under the signature of the Registrar General of the Patna High Court along with a copy of the enquiry report seeking explanation from him as to why the enquiry report be not accepted and he be not suitably punished. 10. On receipt of the second show cause notice issued under the signature of the Registrar General of the High Court, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 12th March, 2010. He challenged the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of both the charges. 11. After considering reply of the petitioner the High Court recommended his dismissal from service. The State Government accepted the recommendation of the High Court and passed the impugned order dated 16th December, 2010 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. 12. Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner delivered judgments in the cases which he heard on the basis of materials available on record. He submitted that since there was no evidence in the sessions trial, the petitioner recorded judgment of acquittal in all the cases. He further contended that since most of the witnesses turned hostile, the petitioner summarily discussed their evidence as a result of which the judgments were brief. Learned counsel further contended that since some other courts were also disposing of and delivering judgments under section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) instead of 232 of the Code in uncontested cases and, as such, the petitioner also followed the same practice. He contended that there was no intention or deliberate attempt on his part to obtain more points. Lastly, it was submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case is too harsh. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for Patna High Court submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were quite serious in nature. Both the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of evidence led in the proceeding. It has further been contended that it is not the case of the petitioner that the proceeding was vitiated in any manner; nor there is any allegation of mala fide. Both the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of evidence led in the proceeding. It has further been contended that it is not the case of the petitioner that the proceeding was vitiated in any manner; nor there is any allegation of mala fide. The grave misconduct of the petitioner was first noticed by the then Hon’ble Inspecting Judge. Subsequently, in course of enquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the allegations made against the petitioner to be substantiated. The Standing Committee of the High Court and the Full Court after due deliberation on the matter found the case of the petitioner fit for dismissal from service and, as such, a recommendation was made by the High Court to the State Government pursuant to which the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service was passed. Mr. Bharti, thus, contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is neither excessive nor too harsh and the same does not call for interference by this court. 14. Mr. Anisul Haque, A.C. to A.A.G.-IX has appeared for the State. He has adopted the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna High Court. 15. Having heard the parties and perused the records, we find that out of 138 judgments passed in sessions cases by the petitioner, 90 judgments have been delivered in two pages and 41 judgments have been delivered in three pages. 16. In Sessions Trial No. 303 of 2007, charges under sections 304B, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code were framed on 12th February, 2008 and on the same day all the four accused were acquitted, after recording evidence of six witnesses and the statement of the accused persons under section 313 of the Code. In the said case, the official witnesses were not even summoned. The judgment was recorded in the said case in 1 and ½ pages and the same has been shown as contested. 17. Similarly, in Sessions Trial No.277 of 2006 registered under sections 376/511, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, out of 14 witnesses cited on behalf of the prosecution, only the victim and her mother were examined. The investigating officer and other witnesses were not even summoned. 17. Similarly, in Sessions Trial No.277 of 2006 registered under sections 376/511, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, out of 14 witnesses cited on behalf of the prosecution, only the victim and her mother were examined. The investigating officer and other witnesses were not even summoned. The case, though not compoundable in nature, was allowed to be compromised and the judgment was delivered on the same day on which charges were framed. 18. We further notice that in Sessions Trial No.823 of 2005 registered under sections 376, 322 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code out of 10 charge-sheet witnesses, only two hostile witnesses whose evidence was discussed in five lines, were examined and the petitioner recorded the judgment of acquittal showing the case to be contested one. 19. The aforesaid cases are just by way of illustration. However, on consideration of the enquiry report, we find that there are more than hundred cases in which either the important witnesses were not summoned in course of trial and judgment of acquittal were recorded or only the hostile witnesses were allowed to depose and judgments of acquittal were delivered. We further find that in most of the cases judgments of acquittal were recorded in utter haste even without making efforts to ensure attendance of the important prosecution witnesses. We also find that in large number of cases of no evidence, the petitioner deliberately did not follow the procedure prescribed under section 232 of the Code. Instead of recording orders of acquittal under section 232 of the Code, the petitioner delivered judgments of acquittal under section 235 of the Code in order to secure far more units than he was entitled to. It would be apparent from the records that hardly ten cases out of more than hundred cases decided by the petitioner would fall in the category of contested cases but he has shown all of them contested in assessment charts furnished by him which were brought on record in course of enquiry and were marked as Ext. 4 series. 20. The defence taken by the petitioner in respect of charge that he claimed non-contested cases as contested one in his self assessment chart submitted to the High Court as some other judicial officers were also adopting the same practice is itself a tacit admission of guilt. 4 series. 20. The defence taken by the petitioner in respect of charge that he claimed non-contested cases as contested one in his self assessment chart submitted to the High Court as some other judicial officers were also adopting the same practice is itself a tacit admission of guilt. It would be relevant to note here that on disposal of contested sessions trials the judicial officers used to earn eight units per case whereas for disposal of non-contested cases they were getting three units per case. The alleged act of petitioner in submitting false assessment report to the Court was deliberate one in order to earn far more units than he was entitled to. The petitioner failed to prove his defence before the Inquiry Officer that some other judicial officers had also shown uncontested cases as contested in the assessment chart submitted by them. Be that as it may, even if the contention of the petitioner is taken to be true, the same would not improve the case of the petitioner. The illegal act of some other judicial officers cannot legalise the illegal act of the petitioner. 21. We, thus, find that both the charges brought against the petitioner were duly proved in the disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was held in accordance with law. The petitioner has not alleged any irregularity in the proceeding. He was given full opportunity of hearing at all stages. Finding of guilt in respect of charges alleged against him by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority is based on materials available on record. 22. When the charges are proved, as has happened in the instant case, in exercise of judicial review the court can interfere with the punishment imposed only when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate suggesting lack of good faith. 23. It is well settled that the judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges discharge their functions while exercising sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. The nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity. Judges discharge their functions while exercising sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. The nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity. The manner in which the petitioner conducted himself in deciding large number of cases of serious nature and the manner in which he misrepresented to the High Court while submitting self assessment reports tantamount to misconduct, gross judicial impropriety, lack of integrity, gross indiscipline, demeaning the majesty of justice and an act unbecoming of a judicial officer. Penalty of dismissal from service for such misconduct cannot be treated as disproportionate. It does not seem to be unreasonable and does not shock the consciences of the court. 24. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. R.M. DOSHIT, C.J.:–I agree.