ORDER : L. Narayana Swamy, J. 1. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the order dated 1-10-2012 against which this writ petition is filed with a prayer to quash the same and to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits. A complaint was made by one K.M. Asif Ahmed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from him to favour a case in O.S. No. 394 of 2006 pending on the file of the Court in which the petitioner was the Presiding Officer. The learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore recorded statement of the complainant and also obtained affidavit. The complaint itself has been taken on record and departmental enquiry was initiated. Before initiation of regular enquiry, a discrete enquiry was conducted and it was opined that there is a case made out for initiation of regular enquiry. Accordingly, enquiry was initiated and Enquiry Officer was appointed. On the basis of the complaint and discrete enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority framed articles of charges in D I No. 1 of 2010 on 30-7-2010. Along with the charge-sheet list of witnesses and list of documents were furnished to the petitioner. Statement of imputation of misconduct was also supplied. The petitioner made representation and sought to drop the enquiry proceedings against him. 2. The complainant has stated in his complaint dated 15-8-2009 that he had filed O.S. No. 394 of 2006. It was pending for the last 3 years and in September 2008 he got a call from one Mr. Shafi and informed to have a talk with Shafi and pursuant to the same he went to the place where Shafi was sitting in a Santro Car No. KA 19 Z 6477. He told him to sit in the car and asked about pendency of the case. He further told that the petitioner was the Judicial Officer, he was his close friend and he would do some favour provided he pays some amount. On the same evening, again he received a call. Thereafter, he went there and saw the petitioner who was sitting in the tinted Honda SUV Car with Registration No. KA 19 6477. Shafi introduced the complainant to the Judge and Judge told the complainant that if he wants to finish the case fast, he has to pay Rs. 15 lakhs. 3. The prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W. 1 and P.Ws. Shafi introduced the complainant to the Judge and Judge told the complainant that if he wants to finish the case fast, he has to pay Rs. 15 lakhs. 3. The prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W. 1 and P.Ws. 2 to 6 are the practicing Advocates of Mangalore of which P.W. 2 is its President and P.W. 7 was the Principal District Judge, who recorded the statement of the complainant and P.W. 8-the Vigilance Registrar and P.W. 9 is the Police Inspector attached to the High Court Vigilance Office. On behalf of the petitioner, himself was examined and he has not examined any independent witness and marked Exs. D. 1 to D. 15 on his behalf. 4. The Enquiry Officer after examining the respective case of the parties held that Articles of Charges have been proved. The High Court Committee-I examined the case papers and recommended the case of the petitioner for maximum punishment. The same was placed before the Full Court and the Full Court concurred with it. Later on recommendation was forwarded to His Excellency Governor, who passed an order dated 1-10-2012 exercising the power under Rule 8(viii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and imposed a penalty of dismissal from service and suspension period was treated as suspension and dismissal was with effect from the same, 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has not proved the case. He alleged mala fides against the complainant. The High Court Committee has not applied its mind while imposing the maximum punishment on the petitioner. The complaint does show that complainant was informed over phone in September 2008 and he was called to meet, accordingly he met, Shafi in turn told in respect of a case in O.S. No. 394 of 2006 in which the petitioner was the Presiding Officer, if it is to be made in favour of the complainant, he can make arrangement for discussion with the Presiding Officer and on the same day he made arrangement, consequently he introduced the petitioner who made a demand for Rs. 15 lakhs in order to make a favour. As per the complaint itself, this was in September 2008 where as the complaint was made on 15-8-2009 about a year thereafter. This long delay has not been explained by the prosecution. 15 lakhs in order to make a favour. As per the complaint itself, this was in September 2008 where as the complaint was made on 15-8-2009 about a year thereafter. This long delay has not been explained by the prosecution. It is his case that the complainant waited one year and not explaining the delay, it gives scope for malice suspecting the integrity of the complainant. 6. In the case pending before the petitioner, the complainant made I.A. for amendment. The same was dismissed by the order dated 3-4-2009. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P. Nos. 10882 to 10885 of 2009. The writ petitions were dismissed and order passed by the petitioner was confirmed. On dismissal of the writ petitions, the complainant preferred this complaint in September 2008. The motive behind the complaint is dismissal of the writ petitions by confirming the order passed by the petitioner. This shows, the complainant has not made a bona fide complaint and it is only made out of malice against this petitioner. 7. Three charges have been framed against the petitioner. But none of the charges have been proved since none of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution have supported the case of the complainant. The evidence of P.W. 1 who is the complainant is unbelievable. He has stated in the complaint, there was demand made by the Presiding Officer on 15-8-2008 and complaint has been made after a gap of an year, that too after dismissal of his writ petition before this Court. In the complaint he has stated Shafi called him. Shafi has not been examined. He has stated in the complaint about the car No. in which the petitioner was sitting. But he has not made available any document, whether the said vehicle either belongs to Shafi or anybody else. The owner of the car has not been examined. 8. The other prosecution witnesses namely P.Ws. 2 to 6 they are in no way material witnesses to the case. Their views is stated to have been recorded by the Vigilance Registrar as part of discrete enquiry. They have stated to the Vigilance Officer about suspecting integrity of the petitioner and none of these prosecution witnesses spoke anything about the demand made or their evidence supports the case of P.W. 1. Hence it is the submission that including P.W. 1 the prosecution witnesses-P.Ws. They have stated to the Vigilance Officer about suspecting integrity of the petitioner and none of these prosecution witnesses spoke anything about the demand made or their evidence supports the case of P.W. 1. Hence it is the submission that including P.W. 1 the prosecution witnesses-P.Ws. 2 to 6 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Absolutely, there is no iota of evidence available in favour of the prosecution to prove the case. 9. P.W. 7 who is the Principal District Judge, recorded the statement of P.W. 1 on 12-10-2009. P.W. 8 was the Registrar Vigilance, who did not conduct discrete enquiry. P.W. 8 has only produced the documents and statement recorded by the predecessor. Hence P.W. 8 is not a material witness to the case. 10. P.W. 9 who has conducted discrete enquiry, whose services were attached to the office of the Registrar Vigilance. P.W. 9 enquired about the incident and not recorded any statement. The learned Counsel submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and they are not material witnesses, even then the Enquiry Officer relied upon their evidence for passing the impugned order. The report of the Enquiry Officer to the extent charges leveled against the petitioner are proved is totally baseless and the same should have been taken in favour of the petitioner by acquitting the petitioner from the charges. 11. It is further submitted that the charges framed are as vague as they could be. They do not spell out the specific instance and case pertaining to the misconduct. The vague charges deprived opportunity to the petitioner to disprove case of the prosecution. On this sole ground only the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. It is submitted, since from the date of appointment, the petitioner served with utmost honesty and integrity. There is no occasion to suspect his integrity. The confidential reports of the petitioner between 10-2-2004 and 26-8-2009 there is a positive report and he was also issued appreciation letter appreciating his services. The respondent has not applied its mind and mechanically passed the impugned order. Once the confidential report comes good and appreciation letter is issued, despite the same, dismissing the petitioner from service is arbitrary and illegal. The evidence of P.Ws. The respondent has not applied its mind and mechanically passed the impugned order. Once the confidential report comes good and appreciation letter is issued, despite the same, dismissing the petitioner from service is arbitrary and illegal. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 6 are either hearsay and it shall be taken as no evidence since they do not make any positive evidence of the prosecution. The Judicial Officers who have no protection, if they are not protected against unscrupulous complaints, it is very difficult for them to discharge their duties. Before framing the charges, the Disciplinary Authority should have dropped the case for want of sufficient material to frame the charges. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that detailed representation has been made pursuant to the second show-cause notice and sufficient instances have been highlighted. It should have been examined thoroughly meeting each and every instance, but while imposing punishment, none of the circumstances or defences are highlighted. This itself shows, the respondent has passed the order without application of mind in a mechanical way. In this regard, the learned Counsel places reliance on P.C. Joshi v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2788 : 2001 (2) LLJ 1249 (SC) : 2001 (5) SLT 694 : 2001 (6) SCC 491 , para 10. 14. The learned Government Advocate submitted to dismiss the petition. Petitioner has got a history of misconduct. Earlier he was working as A.P.P. and on the complaint enquiry was initiated. The enquiry is challenged and it is pending in W.P. No. 17658 of 2010. The complainant-Asif who made a written complaint and whose statement is also recorded by P.W. 7. The complaint and the statement read together give lot of scope for specific case against the petitioner. The complaint has been referred to the High Court and in turn the Vigilance Registrar held a discrete enquiry. During discrete enquiry, the statements were recorded of the Advocates who practiced before the petitioner. It is the statement of the Advocates that the petitioner is not a worthy man whose behaviour is of suspecting nature. Those Advocates have been examined in the enquiry and they have also been cross-examined. In their chief and cross they support the case of the prosecution. It is his submission that P.W. 1 has reiterated the complaint averments and statement recorded and he was called on his mobile. Those Advocates have been examined in the enquiry and they have also been cross-examined. In their chief and cross they support the case of the prosecution. It is his submission that P.W. 1 has reiterated the complaint averments and statement recorded and he was called on his mobile. Shafi informed the complainant to make arrangement to meet the Judicial Officer. In the evening, he went and met the Judicial Officer and petitioner himself made a demand of Rs. 15 lakhs. This piece of evidence is to be taken serious note and that has been considered by the Vigilance Officer and also Committee No. I, Full Court has applied its mind and it was resolved to dismiss the petitioner, the same was recommended to His Excellency Governor, who confirmed the order dismissing the petitioner from service. There is application of mind in passing the impugned order. The petitioner was not required in the judicial services which is unique in nature and cannot be compared to any other services in the State. 15. The learned Government Advocate submits, sufficiency, relevancy and reliability of evidence cannot be reviewed by the High Court in the writ petition. Subjective satisfaction of the witnesses and their evidence was taken note by the Enquiry Officer and in turn has been examined by the High Court Committee No. I and also Full Court and there is nothing open for this Court to reappreciate. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate placed reliance on the judgment in State of Madras v G. Sundaram, AIR 1965 SC 1103 , paragraphs 7 to 10; Commissioner and Secretary to the Government and Others v C. Shanmugam, 1998 (2) LLJ 290 (SC) : (1998) 2 SCC 394 , paras 2 to 4; Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch v Maharaj Singh, 2003 (3) LLJ 1080 (SC) : (2003) 9 SCC 191 , para 5 and it is his submission that this Court under Article 226 has supervisory power and not an appellate power. The petitioner himself has not questioned or complained the procedural aspects in the enquiry. As long as the procedure was not complained, it is presumed enquiry proceedings went in accordance with provisions and punishment it is for the Appointing Authority. Hence it is not open for this Court to sit over the decision as an Appellate Authority. 16. In response to enquiry report, second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. As long as the procedure was not complained, it is presumed enquiry proceedings went in accordance with provisions and punishment it is for the Appointing Authority. Hence it is not open for this Court to sit over the decision as an Appellate Authority. 16. In response to enquiry report, second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner in response to the second show-cause notice has given a detailed reply and the said reply has been thoroughly considered by the Committee and the Appointing Authority, the Chief Justice. The learned Government Advocate also placed reliance on the decision in High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil and Another, AIR 1997 SC 2631 : (1997)4 SLR 321 (SC) : (1997)6 SCC 339 , calcium (a) to (h). 17. The learned Government Advocate submits that the enquiry is fair and proper since the petitioner has not complained the procedure adopted in the enquiry. The learned Government Advocate by referring the resolution dated 14-7-2012 submits that the Full Court considered the resolution dated 6-6-2012 of Administrative Committee No. I, Articles of Charges, evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge Nos. 1 to 3. It was resolved to accept the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on Charge Nos. 1 to 3 against the Delinquent Officer. It is submitted, resolution of the Full Court shows that the Full Court has considered all the aspects of case of the petitioner. 18. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the charges framed against him are vague. The complainant has made a statement which was recorded by P.W. 7, wherein he has stated that the complaint is dated 15-8-2009. That during September 2008 he has received a call from one Shafi. In response to the said call he met Shafi on the same day by evening when he met, the complainant has stated in his complaint that petitioner was present in the car by the side of the driver. Then the petitioner told there is a problem in his case which was filed by the complainant bearing O.S. No. 394 of 2006 which is being posted before the delinquent Judicial Officer who is the petitioner herein, but it can be solved, if some amount is paid. Then they told him to pay Rupees Fifteen Lakhs as fee. Then the petitioner told there is a problem in his case which was filed by the complainant bearing O.S. No. 394 of 2006 which is being posted before the delinquent Judicial Officer who is the petitioner herein, but it can be solved, if some amount is paid. Then they told him to pay Rupees Fifteen Lakhs as fee. The incident according to the complainant it was happened in September 2008. He lodged a complaint on 15-8-2009, waiting for nearly one year. This period has not been explained by the prosecution and complainant has stated that he went to the spot he found the petitioner in a black Honda SUV vehicle which bearing No. 6477 belonging to Mr. Shafi. The gist of this complaint though it is reflected in the charge-sheet but does not give any particulars as to when the petitioner was met by the complainant. 19. The second charge is that a discreet enquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka on 3-9-2009 among the Advocates including President, District Bar Association, Mangalore. It revealed that petitioner had failed to maintain integrity, impartiality and reputation in discharging his judicial functions which is against the service jurisprudence. This charge is as vague as it could be. The enquiry was initiated at the instance of the complaint made by the complainant who is P.W. 1 on 15-8-2009. The complaint is very silent. There is no reference made about conduct of the petitioner. Along with the charge-sheet, though it consists list of documents, but for the purpose of proving Charge No. 2, there are no materials produced and made available and therefore, it will be very difficult for any person to understand the words 'to maintain integrity, impartiality and good reputation in discharge of judicial duty'. In support of the same as the petitioner submitted that he has served for more than 15 years and especially in the year 2008-09 he has received appreciation letter from the High Court of Karnataka. When the things stood like this, when there is no adverse findings in his confidential records against him, that itself shows that the petitioner had maintained integrity impartiality and good reputation. When the things stood like this, when there is no adverse findings in his confidential records against him, that itself shows that the petitioner had maintained integrity impartiality and good reputation. If it was the case of the prosecution that when the petitioner was serving in Mangalore as a Senior Civil Judge, if the allegations were made to the said particular period, then specific allegation should have been reflected in the charges. But, reading of Charge No. 2, it is very vague, no materials are produced along with the witnesses. Ordinarily, anybody/nobody could understand the words "integrity, impartiality and good reputation". Though it could be understood in general sense the question comes in respect of which proceedings the petitioner has not maintained integrity, impartiality and not maintained good reputation. To maintain good reputation is a general observation because during entire service, he has not received any adverse remarks. On the other hand, an appreciation letter has been received for the work he has rendered. When charge-sheet is framed it should be specific and apt. Therefore, in the charge-sheet, the particular date of incident, case number to some extent it should have been mentioned. But I find absolutely no such reference made in respect of Charge No. 2. Hence it is a vague charge. In my view, framing charges is a basis for initiating enquiry. When charge itself is very vague and its furtherance is also bad in law, since it has been furthered on the basis of the vague charges. 20. In respect of Charge No. 3, though discreet enquiry conducted by the Inspector of Police: Vigilance Cell who is C.W. 11, he has been examined as P.W. 9. It is stated that "petitioner was in the habit of visiting the properties involved in the civil suits and delivering the judgments and the petitioner said to be having nexus with some real estate agents". This Charge No. 3 is also without any particulars. It does not disclose anything in fact, it hides all the particulars which should have been made available to the petitioner. It is the charge that petitioner used to visit the property involved in the civil suits. The Judicial Officers would be normally posted to a particular place for a period of three years. The incident has happened in the middle of the said period. It is the charge that petitioner used to visit the property involved in the civil suits. The Judicial Officers would be normally posted to a particular place for a period of three years. The incident has happened in the middle of the said period. If it is the case of P.W. 9 that the petitioner had visited some of the properties in respect of a particular suit, then properties number or the suit Nos. where the respective properties are involved should have been referred. But no such particulars are found in Charge No. 3. Therefore it is also a vague one. The vague is nothing but a vague. The petitioner in his defence has stated that charges are vague and he has pleaded to drop the proceedings. But it has not been done by the prosecution. Hence I hold that charges framed against the petitioner are vague. Hence enquiry proceedings suffers. 21. Secondly, prosecution in order to prove the charges has examined in all 9 witnesses of which P.W. 1 is the complainant himself. The complaint it is already referred that complaint is filed nearly after a year. The complainant had made IA for amendment which was dismissed by the petitioner on 3-4-2009. This was challenged before this Court in W.P. Nos. 10882 to 10885 of 2009 it also came to be dismissed by confirming the order passed by the petitioner on 14-8-2009. The significance of this date is that when the petitioner dismissed the amendment application filed by the complainant on 3-4-2009, he could have filed the complaint because on that day itself he had the knowledge about the call made by one Shafi. He met the petitioner in September 2008 but he failed to make a complaint on the same day or the next day thereafter. But the complainant has made a complaint only after dismissal of the writ petitions referred to above by this Court. Then the complainant must have realised about the attempt made by the petitioner in September 2008. Then he decided to make a complaint and complaint is made in September 2008. This shows malice in lodging the complaint. 22. P.W. 7 is the District Judge then. In his evidence he has averred that the complainant reiterated the contents of complaint, but Shafi has not been examined. Then he decided to make a complaint and complaint is made in September 2008. This shows malice in lodging the complaint. 22. P.W. 7 is the District Judge then. In his evidence he has averred that the complainant reiterated the contents of complaint, but Shafi has not been examined. Further in his evidence P.W. 1 has referred that one Shakeel Mahar an Advocate is informed about the call made by Shafi in September 2008 and Shafi has informed him about the conduct of petitioner who is making demand and corrupt practice. In order to substantiate the said allegation, Shakeel Mahar was not examined. More than that if the evidence of P.W. 1 is scrutinised in the light of the charges, he has deposed in his cross-examination which is available in internal page 9 that: "I did not get notice or summons from Sri Deshpande to give statement before him on 12-10-2009, witness volunteers that, four constables came from Kadri Police Station stating that, Sri Deshpande wants to see me and they took me to Mr. Deshpande. Police did not take me inside the chamber of Sri Deshpande, but standing outside his chamber." In answering after Question No. 4: "I did not have any grievance against the Delinquent Judicial Officer. I have not visited the house of the Delinquent Judicial Officer. I have not taken out the telephone call list with regard to me and Shafi. Witness volunteers that I contacted Airtel Office but they have said that I cannot be given and I have told the same to the Vigilance personally. I have not filed any application before the Airtel Office seeking the said list of calls. My Advocates are looking after my cases in the Courts. Whenever I am called for, I personally go to the Court. In O.S. No. 394 of 2006, Shakeel Mahar and his junior, Ashok Kumar are my Advocates. Witness is confronted with the certified copy of the Vakalathnama and witness admits his signature and the Vakalath is marked as Ex. D. 1." Though P.W. 1 to some extent, supports the case of the prosecution but that itself is not reliable to hold that prosecution has made out a case that petitioner has demanded Rs. Fifteen Lakhs in order to allow the suit in O.S. No. 349 of 2006. D. 1." Though P.W. 1 to some extent, supports the case of the prosecution but that itself is not reliable to hold that prosecution has made out a case that petitioner has demanded Rs. Fifteen Lakhs in order to allow the suit in O.S. No. 349 of 2006. If the complainant was really honest in his effort, nothing prevented him to wait for more than one year that too after dismissal of writ petitions before this Court. When the charges framed against petitioner are to be proved, this evidence is not trust worthy. 23. Similarly, P.Ws. 2 to 6 who are the practicing Advocates, have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. In view of the reason that the Vigilance Officer who wants to have a discreet enquiry he has contacted all these Advocates and recorded their views. These statements have been reflected in the Charge No. 2. It is already stated for the purpose of framing of Charge No. 2 it is not the gist of the complaint and it is because of the views of P.Ws. 2 to 6. 24. P.W. 2 is the President of the Bar Association who has deposed that: "That on 3-9-2009 Registrar (Vigilance), Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Sri Murari had come to the Principal Judge's Chamber. Myself and my colleague Advocates were called to the said chamber. In order to ascertain few things, he had called me and my colleague Advocates to the chamber of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Sri Murari, had asked me about the integrity of the officer Sri Pattan. I had told Murari that, as per the information received through public and members of the Bar Mr. Pattan is practicing corrupt practices. Corrupt practices means, in civil cases, he was taking sides by receiving money by various methods. Similarity of cases, he used to act in a doubtful manner. I had told the Registrar Vigilance when he called me about the same." P.W. 2 has deposed about the integrity of the officer and also about the public information. This piece of evidence cannot be considered for the purpose of proving Charge No. 2 that the Delinquent Officer has failed to maintain integrity, impartiality and good reputation. If the allegations are made against any person, always it should be specific and apt and utmost, particulars have to be furnished. They are nothing but only allegations. This piece of evidence cannot be considered for the purpose of proving Charge No. 2 that the Delinquent Officer has failed to maintain integrity, impartiality and good reputation. If the allegations are made against any person, always it should be specific and apt and utmost, particulars have to be furnished. They are nothing but only allegations. This evidence of P.W. 2 has been taken for framing of charges and this piece of evidence is of no use for the purpose of punishing a person by imposing a capital punishment in the service jurisprudence. 25. The Question No. 2 was put to P.W. 2. Namely, can you say the number of such a cases? "He answered "I do not have those case numbers immediately, my colleagues have submitted the documents to the Registrar Vigilance Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Individually or bar association has not passed any resolution regarding the alleged corrupt practices of the Delinquent Judicial Officer it is false to suggest that I do not have any personal knowledge of the corrupt practice of the Delinquent Judicial Officer. I have not produced any documents to show the same, my colleagues have submitted the same before Registrar, High Court of Karnataka. They have produced certified copies of order sheets, judgments etc. I have lost some cases before the Delinquent Judicial Officer and I have won some of the cases. It is part my practice. I see the certified copy of judgment O.S. No. 186 of 2007 and I admit the same and it is marked as Ex. D. 2. It is false to suggest that, I had taken unnecessary adjournments in O.S. No. 186 of 2007. It is false to suggest that, as the Delinquent Judicial Officer refuse to grant adjournment at my whims and fancies I got angry with the Delinquent Judicial Officer." 26. The Question No. 1 was put to P.W. 2 namely, Whether you have come across in your practice notings of views in any criminal case by the Investigating Officer: "No. I have appeared in civil cases before the Delinquent Judicial Officer when he was presiding as 2nd Additional Senior Judge, 1st Additional Civil Judge, 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and Senior Civil Judge. I do not remember the number of cases. I have not been affected by any judgments of delinquent Judicial Officer. I do not remember the number of cases. I have not been affected by any judgments of delinquent Judicial Officer. I have not received any complaints by the public or by my colleagues regarding the corrupt practices of Delinquent Judicial Officer have ascertained the truth of corrupt practices of the Delinquent Judicial Officer." This evidence of P.W. 2 discloses that he had some hearsay discussions with his colleagues and he was not having first hand knowledge and no incidents were happened and no materials or complaints are placed before the Enquiry Officer in order to substantiate Charge No. 2. It is very pertinent to refer that this Delinquent Officer has to function in respect of many cases. For instance, for Advocates, there may be a single case before the officer but the officer has more than 50 to 100 cases daily. The result would be either this side or that side and the person to the lis the case he has chances of making some allegations. It is very difficult to accept the materials and exact transactions and complaints in respect of allegations of corrupt practice but when one makes an allegation against the particular officer, if it is proved, it takes his life as an officer. Here, I find that Enquiry Officer has relied on the evidence of P.W. 2 though it is very utterly no evidence to prove Charge No. 2. Further the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 6 it is only in respect of Charge No. 2 and not against Charge No. 1. Charge No. 1 is by P.W. 1 he has strenuously stated that he has made a complaint after the lapse of nearly one year that too after the interlocutory application before the Delinquent Judicial Officer was dismissed on 3-4-2009 and the same was challenged before the High Court and the High Court also dismissed the writ petitions on 14-8-2009. Then he filed a complaint on 15-8-2009. These are all things if they are considered to get the life of the Judicial Officer it is very difficult for the said officer to perform his duty. 27. C.W. 5 is examined as P.W. 3. He is also a practicing Advocate at Mangalore. He has also not referred and deposed with any certainty. These are all things if they are considered to get the life of the Judicial Officer it is very difficult for the said officer to perform his duty. 27. C.W. 5 is examined as P.W. 3. He is also a practicing Advocate at Mangalore. He has also not referred and deposed with any certainty. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has argued some cases in G and WC No. 29/2009 and he has stated that: "It is false to suggest that the Delinquent Judicial Officer was not in the habit of throwing any papers in the Court after calling the cases. It is false to suggest that Hemalatha never told me that, one Naveen contacted her to settle the case, witness volunteers that, Naveen was visiting the chamber's of the Delinquent Judicial Officer. I have seen the said Naveen, but I do not know who he is. I have complained the Bar Council regarding the said Naveen visiting the Delinquent Judicial Officer. It is false to suggest that, I do not have good number of cases. It is false to suggest that, the Delinquent Officer have ever told in the Open Court, that the property in G and WC No. 9/2008 is valuable property. It is false to suggest that, the Delinquent Judicial Officer have never expressed any opinion in the open Court, that the petition was not maintainable. It is false to suggest that, I am deposing falsely before the Inquiring Authority at the instance of the President of Mangalore Bar Association." 28. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 3 is not at all useful for any purpose, more particularly, Charge Nos. 2 and 3. Similarly, P.Ws. 6, 7, P.Ws. 4 to 7 who are examined. Their evidence is also of no use to the prosecution. Even they have stated that only on the basis of the hearsay they have deposed before the Vigilance Officer, High Court of Karnataka. They have not adduced anything specifically and instantaneously against the petitioner. 29. Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 6 is of no use to the prosecution to prove Charge No. 2 and I do not find any substance in their evidence to prove the charge against the Delinquent Judicial Officer. 30. They have not adduced anything specifically and instantaneously against the petitioner. 29. Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 6 is of no use to the prosecution to prove Charge No. 2 and I do not find any substance in their evidence to prove the charge against the Delinquent Judicial Officer. 30. P.W. 7 is the Principal District Judge at Mangalore who has deposed in his chief examination that after having received complaint on 15-8-2009 after registering HVC No. 148 of 2009, he called the complainant on 12-10-2009 and made the enquiries with him regarding the details and the background of the said complaint and the complainant was told to file an affidavit to that effect. He had recorded the statement of the complainant and forwarded to the High Court as per the directions of the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court. Except that, there are no other details available which are useful to convict a person for the offence referred to in the charges. 31. P.W. 8 is the Registrar, Vigilance of High Court of Karnataka. The Registrar who conducted the enquiry was retired and instead of him, present Registrar (Vigilance) has been examined as P.W. 8 who produced the report of the earlier Vigilance Officer and this present officer was not having any knowledge about recording the views of the witnesses or correspondence made between Principal District Judge and the High Court. P.W. 8 has deposed in her evidence that "I am deposing in this case on the basis of the records. Up to 31-12-2010 i.e., at the time of his retirement Sri A.P. Murari was working as Registrar (Vigilance) at High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. The Delinquent Judicial Officer was working as Additional Senior Civil Judge and Principal Senior Civil judge at Mangalore till his suspension. A complaint dated 15-8-2009 addressed by one K.M. Asif, was received by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. His Lordship referred the matter to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge. Now I saw the said complaint which is already marked as Ex.P.1. As per the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the then Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka, and the Administrative Judge had requested the District Judge, Mangalore to record the statement of the complainant and accordingly the Mangalore District Judge has recorded the statement and also received the affidavit. Like this evidence of P.W. 8 goes on. She has just produced the records. Like this evidence of P.W. 8 goes on. She has just produced the records. 32. It is very important to note that Sri A.P. Murari, the then Vigilance Registrar of High Court of Karnataka the officer who was instructed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, informed the District Judge to record the evidence of the witness and get evidence of the complainant and he had the first hand knowledge about the incident. If at all, the prosecution was serious, it could have summoned or it could have produced Sri A.P. Murari, the then Vigilance Officer on behalf of the prosecution though he must have retired as on that day. The present P.W. 8 is nowhere responsible and was not having any first hand information or the correspondence made between the High Court and the Court below. Out of the prosecution witnesses-P.Ws. 1 to 8 it is only the evidence of P.W. 1 which is material to some extent and worth consideration for the purpose of examining the case of the petitioner and remaining evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 8 is of no use so as to bring home the guilt as against the petitioner. 33. Under these circumstances, the charges leveled against the petitioner including Charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been tested through the evidence of P.W. 1 and I do not find any worthiness in the evidence of P.W. 1. Accordingly, his evidence has to be treated as most unreliable used for the purpose of proving the case of the petitioner. 34. It is stated earlier that evidence of P.W. 1 alone is sufficient for framing of Charge No. 2. Framing of Charge No. 2 is on the basis of statements of P.Ws. 2 to 6. P.W. 7 is the Vigilance Officer who had a discrete enquiry had collected information from P.Ws. 2 to 6. P.W. 8 is the Vigilance Officer who produced documents from the office of the Registrar (Vigilance). In the circumstances, none of the prosecution witnesses have substantiated and proved the charges leveled against the petitioner. P.W. 9 who is a Police Officer who is attached to the Vigilance Department he has collected information from the Bar Association and Advocates. Under these circumstances, none of the prosecution witnesses have substantiated and proved the charges leveled against the petitioner. P.W. 9 who is a Police Officer who has attached to the Vigilance Department. 35. P.W. 9 who is a Police Officer who is attached to the Vigilance Department he has collected information from the Bar Association and Advocates. Under these circumstances, none of the prosecution witnesses have substantiated and proved the charges leveled against the petitioner. P.W. 9 who is a Police Officer who has attached to the Vigilance Department. 35. The moment charge-sheet is filed, all the statements recorded prior to that one in the discreet enquiry is of no use, unless it is spotted and marked as a document in the later enquiry. Though P.Ws. 2 to 6 have been examined, their evidence is only hearsay and without having any specific personal knowledge and hence their evidence is of no use. 36. Considering all these things, the Delinquent Judicial Officer has deposed as D.W. 1 he deposed that he is innocent, he has not made any demand to the complainant. To say so, the Delinquent Judicial Officer has put forth his service records. Then the burden is automatically shifted on the prosecution to prove all the allegations/charges. But the prosecution has taken it lightly. 37. It is the opinion of the Court that cases of this nature, where an enquiry is held against any Judicial Officer, the prosecution shall take much more care in proving the case. May be it is the Vigilance Officer or the Police Inspector attached to the Vigilance Department, the prosecution should have taken all possible steps in producing the relevant documents and the evidence to prove the case. But here, no such attempt is made by the prosecution. 38. In my opinion, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 6 is of no use P.W. 7 who is the Principal District Judge, he has recorded statement of complainant and received the affidavit, P.W. 8 is Registrar Vigilance who produced documents, P.W. 9 is the Police Officer attached to Vigilance Department. Therefore, the evidences of P.Ws. 2 to 9 is of no use or avail to prove the case of the prosecution and P.W. 1 evidence is truly unreliable as it is made after a gap of nearly one year that too after the dismissal of the writ petitions on 14-8-2009. In considering all the facts narrated above, this Court is of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer has filed and committed an error in holding all the charges are proved. 39. In considering all the facts narrated above, this Court is of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer has filed and committed an error in holding all the charges are proved. 39. The learned Government Advocate submitted that this High Court is not a Court of appeal it is only exercising a supervisory power and in support of his submission he relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil and Another, (1997) 6 SCC 339 ; between "State of Madras v G. Sundaram, AIR 1965 SC 1103 (V 52 C 176)" Perused all these judgments and taken note seriously. But to the present case, these judgments cannot be applied. When a person is deprived his office that too on allegation that he is involved in creating scene in indulging corrupt practices these are of very serious nature, when there is serious allegation, there should have been a serious effort by the prosecution to prove the case. Though, this Court is not of appeal but this Court should take all possible steps to see that immediately, forthwith and if it is found, there is a failure on the part of the prosecution, that should be corrected. In the light of the discussions made earlier I hold that the petition to be allowed. Accordingly, petition stands allowed. The order of dismissal at Annexure-A, dated 1-10-2012 passed by respondent 1 is hereby quashed. Petitioner is ordered to be reinstated into service with all monetary and consequential benefits.