ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of departmental enquiry concern in the case of the petitioner which led to the passing of the order dated 12.05.2015. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order No. 4407/1352/XXI-B/C.G./15 dated 12.05.2015 passed by Government of Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Mantralaya, Raipur, and order no 8450/ Comp./2015 dated 16/October/2015, in the interest of justice 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to reinstate the petitioner back in judicial service, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving under the respondents as a member of judicial service. The petitioner was lastly posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate Dantewada (C.G.). During the service of the petitioner, when he was serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate Dantewada, Bastar (C.G.) a written complaint was made by unknown person against the petitioner to the respondent no. 2. Pursuant to the above unnamed written complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the then District & Session Judge Dantewada Baatar (CCG) and the preliminary enquiry report was submitted before the respondent no. 2. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under auspension and the charges were framed against the petitioner alleging some misconduct while working in Judicial capacity on complaint lodged against the petitioner by an unknown person on 01.02.2013 alleging that while the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dantewada on 10.12.2012, the competent authority and sub divisional Forest Officer Dantewada seized number of vehicles but the petitioner during the tenure of posting as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dantewada, when application for release of number of vehicles on supurdnama was filed before the court of the petitioner which was also opposed by the prosecution on the ground that intimation for initiation of confiscation proceeding has been sent by the competent authority but by ignoring the aforesaid intimation and legal provision the petitioner released the vehicle contrary to the law in order to extend undue favor/ extraneous consideration and thereby committed grave misconduct. In addition allegation of receiving huge amount as illegal gratification and release of sale amount of the confiscate teak wood to 3 different persons is also charged with. After the charges were framed against the petitioner and the relevant documents and list of witnesses were supplied, the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 03.12.2013 denying the charges leveled against him and prayed for personal hearing. During the course of departmental enquiry, 4 witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner. Thereafter no witnesses were examined from the petitioner's side and the proceeding was closed for final hearing. The petitioner filed a written argument on 21.04.2014 which was taken on record. Lastly the enquiry report dated 24.04.2014 was submitted before the respondent no. 2 for its further consideration by the enquiry officer i.e. the then District & Session Judge Bastar and Jagdalpur. The complete departmental enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer enclosed with the enquiry report dated 24.04.2014 was considered by the respondent no 2 and after consideration the respondent no 2 had directed to issue show cause to the petitioner as to why major punishment of dismissal from service under Clause (IX) of Rule 10 of The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) rules 1966 may not be imposed upon the petitioner, calling reply of the same within 15 days of its receipt. The petitioner filed his detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 18.12 2014. After the reply was filed by the petitioner, the same was considered by the respondent no. 2 and on the recommendation of the respondent no. 2 on the basis of departmental enquiry, the respondent no. 1 has awarded major penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner, which shall also be a disqualification for future employment under the Government, under Clause (IX) of Rule 10 of The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules 1966. Thereafter the petitioner challenged the order dated 12.05.2015 and preferred departmental appeal dated 05.08.2015 to the respondent no. 2 which was rejected vide order dated 16/10/2015. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 12/05/2015 is contrary to the material and evidence on record in the departmental enquiry therefore it is liable to be quashed. 2 which was rejected vide order dated 16/10/2015. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 12/05/2015 is contrary to the material and evidence on record in the departmental enquiry therefore it is liable to be quashed. The charges leveled upon the petitioner have not been proved in evidence. In the cases of supurdnama of vehicle, in none of the cases the intimation in prescribed format regarding confiscation of vehicle was sent to the petitioner. In none of the intimation the name of the owner of the vehicle was correctly mentioned. So far as the charge of receiving huge amount as illegal gratification is concerned, that also remained unproved as there is no evidence either of giving or of taking any huge amount as illegal gratification for the purpose of passing any judicial order. There is no evidence on record either oral or documentary to substantiate this charge. The petitioner in his judicial capacity has passed all the orders mentioned in the article of charges with due sincerity and honesty applying judicial mind to the best of his knowledge and ability. The judicial order which he has passed may be an outcome of wrong application of mind or the law but this fact remains unproved in evidence that the judicial orders passed by the petitioners are outcome of any misconduct. If the judicial order which he has passed is contrary to the law then also it is always open to be corrected by the higher court in its revisional or appellate jurisdiction but awarding major penalty of dismissal from service in such facts and circumstances of the case is too harsh and required reconsideration by this Court. It is settled position that a judicial order may be right or wrong which is always open for challenge in the revisional or appellate jurisdiction, therefore the a judicial officer cannot be dismissed from service on this count alone until and unless it is proved that the judicial order has been passed with dishonest intention for any illegal gratification. This situation is completely lacking in the evidence of present case. The quantum of punishment awarded in the facts and circumstances of this case is too harsh and requires kind consideration of this Court. This situation is completely lacking in the evidence of present case. The quantum of punishment awarded in the facts and circumstances of this case is too harsh and requires kind consideration of this Court. The petitioner was working as judicial officer since 1.03.1988 with due honesty and sincerity and has never tried to do anything against judicial discipline therefore in the facts and grounds mentioned above the orders dated 12.05.2015 and 16.10.2015 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 493/2018, decided on 30.04.2018, parties being P. R. Dewangan vs State of Chhattisgarh and others. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by the petitioner's counsel and jointly submit that the petitioner was a member of judicial services and lastly posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada, District- Dantewada (CG). On the basis of written complaint, which was made before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Chhattisgarh, a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the then District & Session Judge, Dantewada (CG) and after completion of preliminary inquiry the above said District & Session Judge, Dantewada submitted a preliminary inquiry report (Annexure P/2) and thereafter, the petitioner has been suspended and charges were framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was constituted against the petitioner and on the basis of enquiry report dated 24.04.2014 submitted by the Inquiry Officer before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and after considering the said enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why major punishment of dismissal from service under Clause (IX) of Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal), 1996 Thereafter, upon considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the above said departmental enquiry was concluded and on the basis of finding of departmental enquiry, the Hon'ble High Court recommended for dismissal of the petitioner from services. Thereafter, in view of the above said recommendation, the order impugned dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure P/13) has been passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, dismissing the petitioner from service and also declared the petitioner disqualification for future employment under the Government. Thereafter, in view of the above said recommendation, the order impugned dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure P/13) has been passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, dismissing the petitioner from service and also declared the petitioner disqualification for future employment under the Government. The answering respondent that the order impugned (Annexure P/13) has been passed by the answering respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under rule 14(3) of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Services Rules, 2006. Since the services of the petitioner are governed by the above said rules and looking to the finding of departmental enquiry, whereby the allegation levelled upon the petitioner has been proved and the Hon'ble High Court recommended for dismissal of service of the petitioner, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested as per rule 14(3) of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Services Rules, 2006, the order dated 12.05.2015 has been passed, whereby, the petitioner has been dismissed from service and also declared the petitioner disqualification for future employment under the Government. Being aggrieved by the above said order dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure P/13) has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Chhattisgarh as per the provision of section 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Recruitment and Appeal) Rules, 1966, however, the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed the above said appeal vide its order dated 16 October, 2015 (Annexure P/14). The petitioner was afforded ample opportunity of hearing before passing the orders impugned, as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned. The instant writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the impugned order (Annexure-P/13) dated 12.05.2015 was passed imposing major penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Thereafter the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has also been dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-P/14). 7. The petitioner has pointed out many facts, which according to petitioner supports him. Thereafter the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has also been dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-P/14). 7. The petitioner has pointed out many facts, which according to petitioner supports him. He has contended that he not caused any illegality or infirmity and has acted as a judicial officer, but the charges were found proved against the petitioner and he has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity committed during departmental enquiry. It is clear from all documents that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner. He filed his reply and before passing penalty, again notice was sent to the petitioner. He filed reply and after that the impugned order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shrirang Yadav Rao Waghmare vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 144 , held in Paras 5 to 11 as under: “5. The first and foremost quality required in a Judge is integrity. The need of integrity in the judiciary is much higher than in other institutions. The judiciary is an institution whose foundations are based on honesty and integrity. It is, therefore, necessary that judicial officers should possess the sterling quality of integrity. This Court in Tarak Singh vs. Jyoti Basu, (2005) 1 SCC 201 held as follows: “Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline, apart from others. It is high time the judiciary took utmost care to see that the temple of justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to a catastrophe in the judicial- delivery system resulting in the failure of public confidence in the system. It must be remembered that woodpekers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside.” 7. The behavior of a Judge has to of an exacting standard, both inside and outside the Court. This Court in Daya Shankar vs. High Court of Allahabad and Others, (1987) 3 SCC 1 held thus: “Judicial Officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and other outside the court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy.” 8. Judges are also public servants. A Judge should always remember that he is there to serve the public. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy.” 8. Judges are also public servants. A Judge should always remember that he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not only by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others should be incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges. 9. Judges must remember that they are not merely employees but hold high public office. In R.C. Chandel vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 58 , this Court held that the standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than that of an ordinary person. The following observations of this Court are relevant: “37. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and the Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secure that Judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration. The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A Judge like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and rule of law to survive, judicial system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartially and intellectual honesty.” 10. There can be no manner of doubt that a judge must decide the case only on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. There can be no manner of doubt that a judge must decide the case only on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If a judge decides a case for any extraneous reasons then he is not performing his duty in accordance with law. 11. In our view the word ‘gratification’ does not only mean monetary gratification. Gratification can be of various types. It can be gratification of money, gratification of power, gratification of lust etc. etc. In this case the officer decided the cases because of his proximate relationship with a lady lawyer and not because the law required him to do so. This is also gratification of a different kind. 12. The Judicial Officer concerned did not live upto the expectations of integrity, behavior and probity expected of him. His conduct is as such that no leniency can be shown and he cannot be visited with a lesser punishment.” 9. In the case in hand, it is clear that after receiving of complaint, preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the then District and Session Judge and preliminary enquiry report was submitted (Annexure-P/2), based on which departmental enquiry was constituted against the petitioner and on the basis of enquiry report dated 24.02.2014, the respondent No. 2 the High Court of Chhattisgarh issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why major punishment of dismissal from service under Clause 10 of Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classificaiton Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 may not be imposed upon him. On the basis of enquiry report, notice was issued after considering the petitioner's reply and on the basis of finding of departmental enquiry, the respondent No. 2 recommended the petitioner for dismissal from service and thereafter in favour of above recommendation, the order impugned dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure-P/13) has been passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department. 10. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2015 has preferred an appeal before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Chhattisgarh as per provisions of Section 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Recruitment and Appeal) Rules, 1966, but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-P/14). 10. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2015 has preferred an appeal before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Chhattisgarh as per provisions of Section 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Recruitment and Appeal) Rules, 1966, but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-P/14). In this petition, the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity during the departmental enquiry or in the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities, as such considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 11. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.