JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. The petitioner was a Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, by this captioned petition has invoked supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14, 16, 235 and 311, assailing the order dated 09.08.2016 terminating the petitioner from his services as Judicial Officer. The writ applicant has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondents to pay salary and all service benefits by treating it as a case of no order of suspension or dismissal. It is also prayed to quash and set aside the award of punishment of dismissal right from inception and to grant all consequential service benefits, as if the petitioner was not terminated. Pending this petition, the prayer was sought to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order of termination dated 09.08.2016 and to permit him to join the services with all benefits, which is otherwise not granted by this Court. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the relevant facts in brief are summarized as under: 2.1 On 11.03.2005, the writ applicant was appointed as a Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the High Court inviting application for the aforesaid post. The first appointment of the petitioner was at Amreli Court, where he worked for nearly two years up to 01.04.2007. From 02.04.2007, the petitioner was transferred to Shinor Court where he joined as a Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class and worked till 29.01.2009. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bhachau at the aforesaid post and worked till 30.05.2011 and was later on transferred to Muli Court in Surendranagar District. 2.2 While he was posted at Muli Court, the High Court on its administrative side, had issued an order on 03.04.2012 suspending the petitioner. On 23.05.2012, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for the alleged misconduct, which according to him was triable in nature. Responding to such allegations, the petitioner had filed a reply on 03.09.2012, which was addressed to the High Court through the learned Principal District Judge, Surendranagar. 2.3 During inquiry, the deposition of the petitioner and the written arguments followed by written submissions in the form of further statement were tendered. Pending the aforesaid inquiry, the petitioner came to be transferred to Vadodara District. 2.3 During inquiry, the deposition of the petitioner and the written arguments followed by written submissions in the form of further statement were tendered. Pending the aforesaid inquiry, the petitioner came to be transferred to Vadodara District. The headquarters was fixed at Vadodara District and the inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer Mr. K.K. Bhatt, District Judge, Vadodara District, which was subsequently transferred to Shri. M.A. Shaikh, the Additional District Judge, Vadodara and was numbered as Departmental Inquiry No.1 of 2012. 2.4 The Inquiry Officer had assigned findings and reasons, thereby holding charge no. I (part-1), II, III, IV, V, VII, part of VIII, IX, X, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX as proved. The report was submitted before disciplinary authority on 21.05.2014 and the report was examined by the High Court and a show cause notice dated 27.08.2014 was issued upon the petitioner calling upon him as to why the punishment as prescribed under rule 6 of the Gujarat (Disciplines and Appeal) Rules, 1971, may not be imposed should not be taken for the charges proved against the petitioner. 2.5 The petitioner had tendered a comprehensive reply along with the list of authorities on 14.11.2014. The Committee of the High Court took into consideration the inquiry report and decided to pass the order of dismissal on 02.09.2016. From the analysis of the charges proved, the committee arrived at the conclusion that the act of the delinquent was unbecoming of the judicial officer and therefore recommended maximum punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil services Rules ( Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1971. The State Government, considering the aforesaid decision of the High Court, issued notification on 09.08.2016 relieving the petitioner by dismissing him from services as Judicial Officer. It is in light of these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of dismissal and consequential reinstatement with all service benefits. 3. We have heard Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior advocate with Mr. Hemang Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Mayank Chavda, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State- respondent No.2. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 4. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner has invited our attention to the inquiry report placed on record. He has taken us through the summary of charges alleged against the delinquent. Hemang Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Mayank Chavda, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State- respondent No.2. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 4. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner has invited our attention to the inquiry report placed on record. He has taken us through the summary of charges alleged against the delinquent. The statement of imputation as recorded in the inquiry report was read by the learned advocate. The reference was also made to the response of the petitioner against such a statement of imputations. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has taken us through the findings of the charges recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It is submitted that in all 23 charges were framed against the petitioner, except for the charge Nos. I (part-1), II, III, IV, V, VII, part of VIII, IX, X, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX as proved, rest of the charges have not been proved. He has, therefore, submitted that the challenge to the aforesaid findings of the Inquiry Officer in case of charges being proved, has been challenged essentially on the ground that there is no evidence against the petitioner and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse. 4.2 The submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner with regard to the charge, which has been accepted to have been proved by the Inquiry Officer are reproduced as hereunder: (A) Charge No.1: 4.3 It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer has relied upon the evidence witness Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20 and 33. The details of the aforesaid witnesses go to suggest that witness Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 33 are advocates whereas witness Nos.7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 16 are the staff members. Our attention was invited to the page No.106 of the Inquiry Officer’s report to contend that all the above referred witnesses are undisputedly hearsay witnesses. According to him, there is no evidence worth establishing the allegation of delinquent having maintained close association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel. That the petitioner had exploited such relations other than for judicial purposes. The learned advocate has emphasized on the specific finding recorded by the inquiry officer at page No.144. Relevant observation of para 25.9, whereby the Inquiry Officer has arrived at a conclusion that “but it is not proved that keeping the relations with Mr. Rakesh Patel. That the petitioner had exploited such relations other than for judicial purposes. The learned advocate has emphasized on the specific finding recorded by the inquiry officer at page No.144. Relevant observation of para 25.9, whereby the Inquiry Officer has arrived at a conclusion that “but it is not proved that keeping the relations with Mr. Rakesh Patel has obtained all orders in favour of him”. He therefore, submitted that in absence of any order being brought on record passed by the petitioner in favour of Mr. Rakesh Patel, who was a junior advocate hardly having any work in Shinor Court, the finding of the Inquiry Officer in absence of any evidence of concluding that the first part of the charge is proved, is perverse. 4.4 Inviting our attention to the second part of the said charge, whereby the allegation was made in reference to Civil Suit No.14 of 2008 notified before the Court of the petitioner, wherein the litigant namely Mr. Subhashchandra J. Solanki had applied before the court for adjournment and the petitioner alleged to have uttered words defaming the said litigant against his caste. Learned advocate has submitted that only one witness was examined by the Department. The reading of the deposition of P.W. No.15 Mr. Subhashchandra J. Solanki, goes to suggest that the said witness had withdrawn the complaint made by him against the petitioner and had not supported the case of the department. Justifying the aforesaid fact, it is submitted that the said complaint was withdrawn even before the report of preliminary inquiry was served. Though such facts have emerged on record, the report was tendered by the learned Principal District Judge Shri. A.N. Vakil was taken into consideration and the charge was framed by the Inquiry Officer. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that once the complaint was withdrawn, there was no reason to proceed with the initiation of inquiry against the petitioner and in absence of any evidence, though the Inquiry Officer has treated the said witness as hostile witness, has arrived at a conclusion of second charge being not proved. (B) Charge No. II : 4.5 Inviting our attention to the charge alleged with regard to utterance of words as mentioned in the second part of Charge No.1, it is further alleged that the petitioner by pointing out his fingers towards three advocates sitting in the court, more particularly, Mr. (B) Charge No. II : 4.5 Inviting our attention to the charge alleged with regard to utterance of words as mentioned in the second part of Charge No.1, it is further alleged that the petitioner by pointing out his fingers towards three advocates sitting in the court, more particularly, Mr. Rakesh Patel, who was sitting in the court, recommended the litigant Mr. Subhashchandra J. Solanki to engage him as a lawyer and to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to him. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has submitted that as pointed out earlier said witness being examined as P.W. No.15 by the Department, who was treated as hostile witness by the Inquiry Officer and having arrived at a conclusion that the second part of the charge No.1 being not proved in absence of evidence, there was no reason for the Inquiry Officer to hold the charge No.2 being proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that, prima facie, the allegation if read as it is, is false as if the same has to be believed of having recommended advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel, there was no question of informing the same to the complainant. 4.6 Learned advocate Mr. Vyas made an attempt to submit that the same appears to be the source of the brain child of some advocate, having a grudge against the petitioner. He therefore submitted that in absence of any single independent witness being examined to substantiate such charge, the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer is perverse and urged before us to relieve the petitioner from the such charge. (C) Charge No. III : 4.7 Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has invited our attention to the allegations made against the petitioner. It was in relation to a dispute about parking of vehicle by Mr. Rakesh Patel in Shinor Police Station on 22.07.2008. It is alleged that the petitioner in order to favour Mr. Rakesh Patel, compelled the Police Sub-Inspector Mr. M.M. Vasava to offer an apology to Mr. Patel on behalf of Mr. Bhikhabhai G. Parmar, who was the driver of the police vehicle attached with Shinor Police Station. By referring to the aforesaid incident, it is alleged that the petitioner misused his authority as a Judicial Officer to sustain his close relations and association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel. M.M. Vasava to offer an apology to Mr. Patel on behalf of Mr. Bhikhabhai G. Parmar, who was the driver of the police vehicle attached with Shinor Police Station. By referring to the aforesaid incident, it is alleged that the petitioner misused his authority as a Judicial Officer to sustain his close relations and association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel. 4.8 While, referring to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the learned advocate has submitted that the Inquiry Officer has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 14. As per the case of the department and even according to the Inquiry Officer, the star witness insofar as this particular charge is concerned, was P.W. No.14- Bhikhabhai Govindbhai Parmar however, the close reading of his evidence goes to indicate that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is absolutely perverse. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer has completely discarded the documentary evidence viz. the resolution of the Bar Association produced at Exh.59, wherein it is specifically recorded that the said witness had tendered his apology which was accepted and the strike was withdrawn. As against that even in cross-examination of the aforesaid witness, he has admitted that the petitioner did not ask P.S.I. Mr. Vasava to apologize on his behalf (reference is made to Para No.5 of Page No.111 of paper book No.2). Reference was also made to the deposition of the prosecution witness No.5-Pravinbhai Chhaganbhai Patel who was the President of the Bar Association who had deposed that it was Bhikhabhai G. Parmar who had come to the Bar Room and had requested to pardon him and the strike was withdrawn (Page No.42 of Paper Book-II Para-16). 4.9 Learned advocate has, therefore, submitted that in absence of examination of P.S.I. Although he has not been cited as witness in the charge-sheet, and has not been examined by the Inquiry Officer, no evidence worth has been brought on record by the department to substantiate the allegations made in the said charge. As against that the petitioner has placed on record the documentary evidence at Exhs. 39, 59 and 67 and has also examined prosecution witness No.14. On overall appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, it is submitted that the said charge is required to be treated as not proved and has urged before us to relieve the petitioner from the charge alleged. As against that the petitioner has placed on record the documentary evidence at Exhs. 39, 59 and 67 and has also examined prosecution witness No.14. On overall appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, it is submitted that the said charge is required to be treated as not proved and has urged before us to relieve the petitioner from the charge alleged. (D) Charge No. IV : 4.10 By referring to the allegations imputed in charge No.4, learned advocate has submitted that false allegations were leveled against the petitioner about harassment being given mentally and sexually to Ms. Sarojben, who was working as an Assistant Clerk in his court at Shinor. The department had referred to Resolution No.(OFT)/1082/UO/1084/GH dated 02.08.1982, wherein it is clearly instructed by the State Government that ordinarily female employees should not be detained for office work after regular office hours. Though, it further provided that if the employee is required to be detained after office hours, the same was required to be done with the prior approval of the head of the department and the female employee was not required to be detained for more than one hour, after the office hours she was compelled to work beyond such approved hours and during holidays. It was also alleged that the petitioner compelled her to give into his sexual and other demands, and had served upon her notices and memos. 4.11 According to the learned advocate, the Inquiry Officer has recorded findings which are perverse. To substantiate, this charge though the Inquiry Officer has relied upon the evidence of the P.W. Nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 31 and 35. No evidence worth the allegations of harassment given to the said witness, has been brought on record. On the contrary in her cross-examination, she has specifically admitted that the petitioner has not personally harassed her. Our attention was invited to the Page No.56 in Paper Book No.II. The reference was made to the earlier statements of the said witnesses dated 30.09.2008 and 07.02.2012 ( produced on record at Page Nos.66 to 72 of Paper Book No.II). The bare reading of which does not disclose the allegations as imputed in the said charge. Though the Inquiry Officer has referred to the Circular dated 10.08.1982 issued by the State Government, the letters of the Principal District Judge were produced on record at Exhs. 107 and 108. The bare reading of which does not disclose the allegations as imputed in the said charge. Though the Inquiry Officer has referred to the Circular dated 10.08.1982 issued by the State Government, the letters of the Principal District Judge were produced on record at Exhs. 107 and 108. The close reading of which otherwise goes to indicate that if subordinate employees were made to work after office hours for completing pending work, the same cannot be termed to be a misconduct under any circumstances. 4.12 He has further referred to the office orders issued by the petitioner whereby the sub-ordinate staff was informed to complete pending work by remaining present in the office prior and/or after the office hours. The said office order was circulated to all the employees who have in turn volunteered to complete the pending work by remaining present after office hours. The same is clearly reflected in the report of Registrar cum Nazir dated 29.08.2007 at Exh.106, where the staff members were directed to complete arrears of work after office hours voluntarily. The deposition of the prosecution witness Mr. P.R. Shah at Exh.139 if read along with his report dated 05.07.2007 at Exh. 146 go to indicate that said Ms. Sarojben being a lady employee was in fact exempted from the work after the office hours, in view of letter at Exh. 146 produced on record at (Page No.81 in Paper Book No.1). By referring to the aforesaid material, the learned advocate has submitted that the finding of the Inquiry Officer with regard to the aforesaid charge is absolutely perverse and directing the subordinate employee to work beyond office hours in no manner can be treated as mental harassment of a working woman at work place. He therefore submitted that there was total non-application of mind by the Inquiry Officer. (E) Charge No. V : 4.13 By referring to the allegations imputed against the petitioner in charge No.5, the learned advocate has submitted that it was alleged against the petitioner that he contacted Ms. Sarojben from mobile No.8460378322 in order to know as to what statement she has given before the Vigilance Officer. It is further alleged that because of such an act of petitioner, the witness Sarojben got frustrated. Sarojben from mobile No.8460378322 in order to know as to what statement she has given before the Vigilance Officer. It is further alleged that because of such an act of petitioner, the witness Sarojben got frustrated. According to the Inquiry Officer, such an act of the petitioner amounted to interference in the due process of the inquiry and an attempt to brow-beat and threaten and distract the witness from giving a statement against him. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer merely on the basis of assumption and presumption by finding that witness Sarjoben, has not stated anything in her deposition to substantiate this charge, committed serious error though no cogent evidence has turned upon record/come on record to establish such charge. The Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the call details regarding the telephonic conversation, which has taken place between the mobile number of petitioner and the said witness, has arrived at a conclusion that the charge is proved. Though, the Inquiry Officer has recorded that there is no evidence regarding what they have discussed during telephonic conversation. The Inquiry Officer drew inference that, since the petitioner had called her the same is treated to be sufficient to conclude that the petitioner had contacted either to know what she had stated before the Vigilance Officer or to pressurize the witness not to disclose anything against him. 4.14 Learned advocate has submitted that during the course of the departmental inquiry, it was the Vigilance Officer who had also remained in contact with the said witness after even recording of her statement. Though, the Vigilance Officer is not supposed to be in contact. The said aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer and the mere contact of the petitioner with the said witness is treated as misconduct. At this stage, it was mentioned that even Mr. R.S. Shinde and Mr. R.B. Bhatt were also in contact with Ms. Sarojben as evident from the call details. The reliance was placed on the evidence of Defence Witness (D.W.) Nos.9, 11, 13 and 14 as well as the documents produced at Exhs.99 to 108, 112 to 114, 121 to 123, 126, 127, 132, 146, 197 to 205, 237, 465, 469, 495A, 496, 501, 523 and 533. Sarojben as evident from the call details. The reliance was placed on the evidence of Defence Witness (D.W.) Nos.9, 11, 13 and 14 as well as the documents produced at Exhs.99 to 108, 112 to 114, 121 to 123, 126, 127, 132, 146, 197 to 205, 237, 465, 469, 495A, 496, 501, 523 and 533. (F) Charge No. VII : 4.15 Learned advocate for the petitioner has invited our attention to the allegations imputed against the petitioner of having established sexual relations with Ushaben wife of Bailiff Mr. Vijay C. Shah, working in his court. It is further alleged that the petitioner pressured Ms. Sarojben thrice to go to the residence of Ushaben in absence of Mr. Vijay C. Shah for securing her mobile and landline numbers. It is submitted that having noticed the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner is alleged to have committed misconduct and also an act of unbecoming of Judicial Officer as this amounts to sexual harassment of woman at work place place within the meaning of Rule 3(B) of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. 4.16 So far as this charge is concerned, the learned advocate has submitted that the victim can be treated as the star witness however, she has neither been cited as a witness nor has been examined by the Inquiry Officer. Even the husband of the said victim has not been examined. According to the learned advocate, false allegations have been leveled against the petitioner at the behest of Ms. Sarojben, who had personal grudge and bias against the petitioner. To demonstrate the aforesaid fact, learned advocate had placed reliance upon the documents and the evidence as relied upon in the case of earlier charge related to Ms. Sarojben. The learned advocate has explained by submitting that the husband of Ushaben i.e. Vijay Shah was caught by the petitioner along with Mr. Dhiraj Khodabhai Vasava (Peon) and Mr. Chetan Vasava (temporary xerox machine operator), who had provided xerox copies of old records by accepting the illegal gratification. Later on, all these persons have tendered their apology in writing to the petitioner in presence of the staff and the members of the Bar. The petitioner had, in fact, submitted a report to the District Court, which is produced on record at Exhs. 125 and 156. It is further submitted that Mr. Later on, all these persons have tendered their apology in writing to the petitioner in presence of the staff and the members of the Bar. The petitioner had, in fact, submitted a report to the District Court, which is produced on record at Exhs. 125 and 156. It is further submitted that Mr. Vijay C. Shah was also doing business and selling of pan masala, biscuit, wafer, etc. in the court compound, which was objected by the petitioner. Even otherwise, so far as the reason cited for collecting the contact number of the staff including their residence phone number, is concerned, the same is easily accessible from the court records, and therefore, the story put forward by the witness Sarojben of she being asked to collect the contact number of Ushaben’s residence is not believable. 4.17 It is further submitted that all these persons belonged to the same community and they had connived together and had leveled false allegations against the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the said charge is absolutely false and frivolous and has urged this Court to discard the same against the petitioner. (G) Charge No. VIII : 4.18. As per the aforesaid charge, it was alleged that the petitioner has enjoyed various parties arranged by him at village-Sadhali and other places wherein women were kept present for his enjoyment and fun along with Nazir P.R. Shah, Peon-Mr. Rajubhai Vasava & Peon-Mr. Shinde as mentioned in details in imputation. By referring to such allegations, the Inquiry Officer had framed charge with regard to failure of the petitioner to maintain absolute integrity as he had taken obligation of advocate practicing in his court, who was frequently appearing before him and he was passing orders favorable to his clients. As also the petitioner was alleged to have recommended the litigants to engage Mr. Rakesh Patel in order to get favorable orders from him. 4.19 Our attention was invited to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect to the aforesaid charge, more particularly, para 25.8 at page No.143, to contend that the Inquiry Officer has specifically recorded the finding that the department has failed to prove charge No.8. Even the charge with regard to close association with Mr. 4.19 Our attention was invited to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect to the aforesaid charge, more particularly, para 25.8 at page No.143, to contend that the Inquiry Officer has specifically recorded the finding that the department has failed to prove charge No.8. Even the charge with regard to close association with Mr. Rakesh Patel has been erroneously concluded to have been proved, though at the same time it is noted that remaining charges are not proved, the Inquiry Officer has traveled beyond the charge. Once again, our attention was invited to the charge leveled against the petitioner and it is submitted that having close association with Mr. Rakesh Patel was not the charge, which was leveled against the petitioner in the said charge and thus, the inquiry officer has traveled beyond the charge which was leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner had referred to the defense witness No.14 and the various documentary evidence produced on record at Exh.46, 76, 77, 78, 94 to 98, 207, 208, 210 to 212, 252, 370, 497. (H) Charge No. IX : 4.20 Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has read the charge imputed against the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had deliberately harassed Mr. Suthar, who was working as Assistant at Civil Court, Shinor by giving him work late in the evening and compelling him to do the work on the same day even though he had pending work well in advance and it was expected from the petitioner to give the work well in advance to Mr. Suthar. 4.21 Heavy reliance was placed upon the cross-examination of the said witness, who has been examined as prosecution witness No.16, wherein he has admitted that over and above, the petitioner and other judicial officers have also issued various notices to him. In fact, the learned Principal District Judge had also passed censure against him for not cooperating in the work. The said witness has also admitted in the cross-examination, that the District Court had also issued notice upon him, whereby the charge of Nazir was required to be given to the stenographer. 4.22 It has further transpired from his deposition that he used to travel to and fro from Vadodara to Shinor to attend his job as no permission was granted to him. 4.22 It has further transpired from his deposition that he used to travel to and fro from Vadodara to Shinor to attend his job as no permission was granted to him. Because of such a travel schedule, on many occasions, he had lately arrived at job and his casual leaves were deducted by the petitioner. All these facts are part of the record and in fact, the petitioner had made a complaint with regard to such facts to the District Court. By referring to the aforesaid facts, learned advocate has submitted that various applications were moved by the said witness seeking transfer even when the petitioner had joined at Shinor on 02.04.2007, the said witness had once again applied for transfer. Thus, it was evident that the said witness did not intend to continue to work at Shinor Court and he was not reporting for duty on the time and at the same time, he was not performing his work satisfactorily and was not even cooperating with the Presiding Officer. In light of such background, while highlighting the documentary evidence, the learned advocate has submitted that 150 criminal cases were not traceable for which he was issued notices. As an officer attached with the Court, he was expected to maintain annual statements and to forward such statements to the District Court. The contradictions, which had emerged on record from the deposition of the said witness of having prepared and forwarded the statements for the year-2006 i.e. the period before which the petitioner had joined at Shinor, it goes to indicate that the petitioner and other Judicial Officers who had issued notices to the said witness were wrong and the said witness was the only one who was speaking gospel truth. The aforesaid stand of the witness is clearly contradictory to the record and it is therefore, submitted that the said witness is not reliable. The reliance was placed upon the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee at page No.441 to submit that the said charge was not accepted. He therefore, urged this Court to discard the aforesaid charge against the petitioner. (I) Charge No. X : 4.23 By referring to the aforesaid charge, the learned advocate has submitted that it was contended that the petitioner compelled Mr. Vijaykumar Panchal an advocate to provide refreshments to him and to staff and ordered such refreshments on behalf of Mr. He therefore, urged this Court to discard the aforesaid charge against the petitioner. (I) Charge No. X : 4.23 By referring to the aforesaid charge, the learned advocate has submitted that it was contended that the petitioner compelled Mr. Vijaykumar Panchal an advocate to provide refreshments to him and to staff and ordered such refreshments on behalf of Mr. Vijaykumar Panchal by compelling him to pay bills. It is further alleged that the petitioner consumed tobacco, pan masala at the cost of said witness Mr. Vijaykumar Panchal. 4.24 According to the learned advocate, the Inquiry Officer has committed serious error in believing the evidence of witness No.33, by submitting that the said witness was not reliable in absence of any complaint made by the said witness against the petitioner to any authorities at any point of time. The learned advocate had offered an explanation that the said witness was a junior advocate of one Mr. R.B. Bhatt who used to attend the court proceedings before the petitioner for the purpose of seeking adjournments. In his cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that the petitioner disliked the adjournments as it delayed the proceedings. Because of such adjournments, his senior Mr. R.B.Bhatt had developed a grudge against the petitioner. The learned advocate has further pointed out that the statement of the aforesaid witnesses were not recorded in presence of Vigilance Officer as on 07.02.2012, the Vigilance Officer was not present as he was at District Court, Vadodara. Our attention was invited to the fact that the statement of both these witnesses does not contain the signature of the Vigilance Officer. Thus, the petitioner has disputed the genuineness of their statements. Even otherwise, there are material contradictions in the statement and the deposition of P.W. No.33-Vijay Panchal as regards providing the refreshment to the petitioner and his staff as imputed in the said charge is concerned. Though, it is alleged that the petitioner had compelled him to provide a refreshment on innumerable occasions, as against that, in his deposition, he has stated that once or twice he had called for respondent. It is further alleged as can be noticed from the statement of the said witness that in case of birth and death applications, where advocate Mr. It is further alleged as can be noticed from the statement of the said witness that in case of birth and death applications, where advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel was engaged, the deposition of the applicants were recorded by the Nazir whereas in case of other advocates, the depositions were recorded in the court house, to which, the petitioner has invited our attention to his cross-examination, wherein he has admitted that it has not happened in any case of birth and death that the petitioner had recorded the deposition through Nazir. 4.25 Inviting our attention to the contradictions, the learned advocate has submitted that the same was the basis for charge No.11, which is held not being proved. Thus, it was submitted that no other independent witnesses though available have supported the said allegation as against that the petitioner has examined defense witness No.14. He therefore, urged that the Inquiry Officer committed serious error in arriving at a conclusion that said charge was proved. (J) Charge No. XV : 4.26 The learned advocate had read the allegations imputed against the petitioner, whereby the Inquiry Officer had alleged that the petitioner had failed to maintain dignity and the decorum of the court as he was found to be consuming the tobacco, pan masala and gutka on the dias of the court and for the purpose of spitting the same out, he used to retire from the dias and loitered in the lobby outside and used to occupy the chair of Nazir or other staff members. The petitioner has denied ever consuming pan masala, tobacco and gutka on dias. It is submitted that in fact, he had always maintained the timings to attend the court. The reference was made to surprise visits made by the learned Principal District Judge and learned Additional District Judge on three occasions to indicate that the petitioner was found on dias on all the occasions. Reference was made to the such surprise visit being conducted, while he was posted at Bhachau. Though, the Investigating Officer has relied upon the evidence of prosecution witness Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 33 and 36, it is submitted that the allegations are absolutely false and frivolous. Reference was made to the such surprise visit being conducted, while he was posted at Bhachau. Though, the Investigating Officer has relied upon the evidence of prosecution witness Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 33 and 36, it is submitted that the allegations are absolutely false and frivolous. It is further submitted that in fact, the petitioner used to take surprise visits by retiring from the dais as the sub-ordinate staff at Shinor was not performing efficiently and effectively as noticed in the case of Bailiff Mr. V.C. Shah who was doing the business of pan masala and namkeen in the court premises, which was later on stopped by the petitioner. Various instances of non-performance of work by the supporting staff at Shinor have been referred to by the petitioner in his evidence. The petitioner has also produced documents at Exhs. 99 to 101, 275, 280 to 285, 292, 448 to 451, 470, 518 and 534. Apart from the various documentary evidences, the petitioner has also examined defense witness Nos.1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14. He has, therefore, submitted that the Investigating Officer committed serious error in holding that the said charge was proved against the petitioner and urged before us to re-appreciate the evidence and to exonerate the petitioner from the said charge. (K) Charge No. XI : 4.27 It is alleged in the said charge that though it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that Sections 326 and 307 of I.P.C. is invoked or is invokable and he having lost the jurisdiction to hear the case of bail or otherwise, the petitioner deliberately ignored the said legal position and enlarged the accused on bail in Criminal Case No.916 of 2010, despite the fact that victim had grievous injuries and was under treatment in the hospital which was within the knowledge of the petitioner and ultimately, the victim died. 4.28 So far as this charge is concerned, the learned advocate has submitted that the FIR in question was forming part of the record, wherein the accused were alleged to have committed an offense punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the I.P.C. In the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer had admitted that there was no possibility of addition of Sections 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. The injury certificate issued by the Referral Hospital at Bhachau, indicates that simple and not serious injuries were noticed. He therefore, submitted that all these sections which were charged against the accused, were triable by a Magistrate and were bailable and therefore, in view of provisions of Section 436 of the Cr.P.C., a Magistrate was competent to release the accused on bail, if he had shown his readiness to furnish the bail. 4.29 By referring to the aforesaid legal position, the learned advocate has submitted that no fault can be attributed with the petitioner of having released the accused on bail, more particularly, when it was a case of cross complaint. He has further submitted that it is also a matter of record that when the accused was released on bail, there was no addition of charge under Sections 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. Thus, merely on the basis of presumption, the petitioner could not be expected to not release the accused on bail. Even otherwise, this was within the judicial discretion entrusted to the Magistrate under the procedural laws, which in no manner can be subjected to the proceedings under departmental inquiry. He therefore submitted that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that once Sections 326 and 307 are invoked or invokable, the petitioner lost jurisdiction, is contrary to the evidence on record. Apart from the aforesaid fact, not a single witness has given deposition which supports the said charge against the petitioner. Reliance was placed upon the documents produced at Exh.277 to 279 and the evidence of defense witness No.14. He has therefore urged this Court that charge imputed against the petitioner is misconceived and is required to be quashed and set aside. (L) Charge No. XVII : 4.30 By referring to the said charge, the learned advocate has submitted that it was alleged against the petitioner that he received favors from Mr. Paresh P. Joshi and Mr. He has therefore urged this Court that charge imputed against the petitioner is misconceived and is required to be quashed and set aside. (L) Charge No. XVII : 4.30 By referring to the said charge, the learned advocate has submitted that it was alleged against the petitioner that he received favors from Mr. Paresh P. Joshi and Mr. Jigar Joshi owner of Gurukrupa Guest House, who were arranged as accused in Criminal Case No.741 of 2001 filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act by accepting tiffin meals though the said case was going on in his court. Our attention was invited to the evidence of prosecution witness Nos. 18, 19, 25 and 36, which have been relied upon by the Investigating Officer, in light of the said charge. Though the star witnesses have been named in the charge for reasons known to the department, they have not been examined. The petitioner had therefore examined Mr. Paresh Joshi as a defense witness. The Investigating Officer taking note of the fact that he was called upon by the delinquent, his evidence was discarded on the assumption that the witness had appeared to help the delinquent, which goes to establish his relationship with delinquent. The petitioner has offered an explanation by contending that the tiffins were delivered by Sharkarbhai Davda, Darmentiben Thakkar and Jayshreeben Thakkar and the witnesses have admitted this fact and to substantiate his case, the petitioner has produced the affidavits of all these witnesses. Though, request was made to the Inquiry Officer seeking permission to examine them as defense witnesses and summons being served initially, they did not turn up. The application for re-issuance of summons though tendered, was rejected by the Inquiry Officer thereby not permitting them to be examined as defense witness. 4.31 By referring to the aforesaid fact, the learned advocate has submitted that no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forward his case in order to disprove the charge alleged. However, reliance was placed upon the documentary evidence brought on record at Exh.281, 415 to 417, 447, 450, 451, 478 and 518 as well as the evidence of defense witness Nos.1, 2, 10, 12 and 14. (M) Charge No. XVIII : 4.32 The learned advocate had read the aforesaid charge, whereby it is alleged that the petitioner had failed to observe the court hours as mentioned in detail. (M) Charge No. XVIII : 4.32 The learned advocate had read the aforesaid charge, whereby it is alleged that the petitioner had failed to observe the court hours as mentioned in detail. 4.33 By referring to the said charge, the learned advocate has submitted that it is similar to what has been alleged in charge No.15 and has referred to the same documentary evidence as well as the evidence of the witnesses to deny such allegations. (N) Charge No. XIX : 4.34 Learned advocate had referred to the imputations made in the said charge against the petitioner, wherein it is alleged that he administered electric shocks to Mr. Devabhai R. Bhalani, Mr. M.H. Joshi and Mr. P.C. Joshi (peons) and Mr. Tanvir Meer (Night Watchman) in order to get sadistic pleasure and to physically harass them in the court premises. 4.35 While referring to the findings recorded by the Investigating Officer, the learned advocate has submitted that reliance was placed on the evidence of prosecution witness Nos.21, 23, 26 and 30. To examine the said charges, it is submitted that the complaints which were otherwise relied upon for initiation of departmental inquiry, no such allegation was leveled against the petitioner. It was at this stage, when the Vigilance Officer while inquiring from the witnesses in respect of charges alleged from the said witnesses, the aforesaid facts were derived. It would be worth mentioning that no material regarding so-called personal information of the Vigilance Officer, has been brought on record. The learned advocate has further submitted that even otherwise, if the said charge is to be examined, it is to be practically impossible to believe that the starter of the tube light would ambit any current to justify such fact in the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner has examined one witness Sunil Parikh, who was working as Deputy Engineer with MGVCL and can be considered as an expert on the subject. He has further submitted that the said witness though having categorically stated that by joining electric wire on two hands of a tube light starter, if the other side of the wire touched by any person, he would not get any current. The said witness had also demonstrated that even after being removed from the tube light if the starter is touched by any person, he would not get any current. The said witness had also demonstrated that even after being removed from the tube light if the starter is touched by any person, he would not get any current. In spite of such evidence being brought on record, the Inquiry Officer has ignored the said evidence and has recorded perverse findings by observing that by doing such act of jetting with the sub-ordinate staff of the court as a Judicial Officer, the delinquent has not maintained his good reputation. 4.36 By referring to the aforesaid observations, the learned advocate has submitted that such finding is not only contrary to the evidence of the expert witness, but is based on assumption and hence is perverse. The reference was also made to the documentary evidence produced on record at Exhs.276, 286 to 291, 293, 448, 449 and 476. The petitioner has also referred to the evidence of defense witness Nos.8 and 14, in support of his case. He therefore urged this Court that the charge is unbelievable and in absence of any cogent material being brought on record, the same is required to be discarded against the petitioner. 4.37 After making the aforesaid submissions, in support of his case, the learned advocate has placed reliance upon the following authorities: (I) In the case of Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 (para Nos.12 and 13); (II) In the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and others reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 (Para Nos.6 to 10); (III) In the case of Union Of India vs T. R. Varma reported in AIR 1957 SC 882 (Head Note C, Paragraph No.8) (For Charge No.1, 2 and 19); (IV) In the case of S.J. Pathak vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2010) 1 GLR 153 (Paragraph No.25 for Charge No.16); and (V) In the case of Yogesh M. Vyas vs. Registrar, High Court of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2009) 1 GLR Page No.14 (Paragraph Nos.14 and 16) (For charge No.16). SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1 : 5. On the other hand, learned Senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with learned advocate Mr. reported in (2009) 1 GLR Page No.14 (Paragraph Nos.14 and 16) (For charge No.16). SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1 : 5. On the other hand, learned Senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with learned advocate Mr. Hemang Shah for respondent No.1, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & another vs. K.S. Vishwanath reported in (2022) 15 SCC 190 , to highlight the scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings. It was a case of departmental inquiry against the delinquent officer by the disciplinary authority of the appellant Bank, wherein it was alleged that the respondent-delinquent had got prepared a set of fraudulent cash remittance documents, which were produced before the State Branch as genuine and had parted with cash remittance. After receiving the same as cash, the delinquent had failed to account for the same in the books of the bank. Considering the inquiry report and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the management was able to establish and prove complicity of the delinquent officer. Such recordings of findings by the Inquiry Officer were based on appreciation of the evidence on record, which included the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence. Despite the aforesaid findings being recorded based on the evidence on record, the High Court set aside the order of punishment and directed the bank to give all consequential benefits to the respondent. Even the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the intra court appeals, by observing that the management had failed to prove the complicity of the delinquent officer in the alleged offense. The Bank went in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the court upon close examination of the record, noticed that the management was able to prove the complete chain of events and had rightly arrived at a conclusion that it was a delinquent officer, who had prepared the false letter and had went for withdrawal of cash and in fact, it was the delinquent who took the cash/remittance of Rs. 10 Lakhs and had not deposited the same with the concerned branch. 10 Lakhs and had not deposited the same with the concerned branch. With such facts being brought on record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed serious error in re-appreciating the entire evidence on record and thereafter, interfered with the findings of facts recorded by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority, the Court held that such exercise by the High Court of re-appreciating the evidence on record and interfering with the finding of the fact of the Inquiry Officer ,was not permissible in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5.1 By inviting our attention to the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decisions relied upon in the aforesaid case, the learned Senior Advocate, at the outset, has submitted that what is essentially challenge in the present petition is the order of termination passed by the Department, which is based on the evidence on record. There is no breach of principles of natural justice being contended by the petitioner. The attention was invited to the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Patel Pravinbhai Ranchhodbhai, the Registrar General of the High Court, wherein specific contention with regard to the limited jurisdiction vested in matters arising out of departmental inquiry proceedings, has been raised. The learned senior advocate has submitted that the inquiry is held by the competent authority, further no ground is raised with regard to any procedural lapse while holding inquiry neither any grievance has been made with regard to violation of principles of natural justice, while holding the departmental proceedings nor the allegations are made that the authorities have disable themselves from reaching a fair conclusion on extraneous considerations or merits of the case. It is pointed out by the learned advocate that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer is wholly arbitrary and capricious, which no reasonable person could have ever arrived at. It is not also alleged that the disciplinary authority erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence or that the authority has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the finding of the authority or that the findings of fact are purely based on no evidence. It is not also alleged that the disciplinary authority erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence or that the authority has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the finding of the authority or that the findings of fact are purely based on no evidence. 5.2 By referring to the aforesaid instances, and to meet with the arguments made by the learned advocate for the petitioner as regards no evidence and perversity in recording of finding by the Inquiry Officer, the learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon the relevant observations of the disciplinary authority and has submitted that the Inquiry Officer has considered all the objections raised by the delinquent against the inquiry report and has thereafter, proceeded to assign his findings. It was submitted that the standard of proof to be examined in departmental inquiry is preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal trial. It was also submitted that the aforesaid decision was placed before the Committee headed by the Hon’ble Judges who have found the opinion that the Inquiry Officer has considered the evidence of the delinquent as well as of his witnesses and while dealing with each charge has considered the evidence available before him having noted so, the Committee found no fault with the decision making process undertaken by the Inquiry Officer. On analysis of the charge proved, the Committee arrived at a conclusion that the delinquent officer had committed act, which amounts to unbecoming of the Judicial Officer and therefore, recommended the punishment of dismissal from services in terms of Rule 6(8)of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. 5.3 The learned Senior Advocate had once again placed reliance upon the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra), to respond to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, to contend that no contradictions can be attributed to the aforesaid evidence of the witnesses as against the evidence of the expert witness examined by the petitioner, even if the same has to be accepted, no perversity can be attributed to such finding of the Inquiry Officer. At the most, if a second view has to be taken, the same does not fall within the purview of this Court while examining the present petition in supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5.4 Responding to the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner about the quality of the evidence is concerned, the learned Senior Advocate has submitted that adequate and sufficient evidence has been brought on record to arrive at a finding in the respective charges as expected to have been proved by the Inquiry Officer. It is submitted that merely because the said witnesses are hearsay witnesses, would not discard the reliability of such witnesses, to be believed to be read as evidence for establishing the charge imputed against the petitioner. To substantiate their case, the learned Senior Advocate has invited our attention to the multiple witnesses referred to and relied upon in light of the incident alleged in respective charges imputed against the delinquent. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the bare comparison of their evidence goes to suggest that their evidence reveals around the specific incident involving the delinquent Judicial Officer. In such circumstances, their evidence can not be said to be unreliable. In fact, the collective reading of the evidence of such witnesses raises a probable case against the delinquent, which was sufficient for the Inquiry Officer to accept the case against the delinquent followed by the order of termination. 5.5 Our attention was invited to the Circular dated 02.08.1982 produced at Page No.129, wherein necessary instructions have been passed by the State Government in case of female employees, who cannot be compelled to attend the work beyond one hour after office hours, which otherwise requires prior approval of the head of the concerned department. The delinquent has tried to defend himself by placing reliance upon the letters of the concerned learned Principal District Judges at Exhs.107 and 108. On careful perusal of the aforesaid letters, in light of the Circular issued by the State Government, the Inquiry Officer has arrived at a conclusion that nowhere it can be seen that women staff members have been directed to work after office hours or at night or during holidays. Indisputably, what has transpired is that the delinquent had taken the work from women staff members after office hours and had compelled Ms. Indisputably, what has transpired is that the delinquent had taken the work from women staff members after office hours and had compelled Ms. Sarojben to do work in the night without her consent. It is in light of this evidence, the Inquiry Officer has accepted the charge No.4 being proved against the delinquent. 5.6 The Inquiry Officer has also noticed the documentary evidence in light of early evidence to come to the conclusion that the delinquent had contacted Ms. Sarojben either to know what she has stated before the Vigilance Officer or to pressurize the witness not to disclose anything against the delinquent. The Inquiry Officer noted that the call details between the ex-boss and ex-staff members that too at the stage of pending inquiry, amounts to interference in the due process of inquiry and attempt to brow-beat and threat and to distract the witness from giving her statement against the delinquent and has, therefore, rightly concluded such acts of the delinquent, amounts to unbecoming of a Judicial Officer as well as a misconduct. 5.7 While addressing us on the charge No.19 alleged against the petitioner, our attention was invited to the charge imputed. The reference was made to the deposition of one of the witnesses Mr.K.J. Raval (P.W. No.21), who has deposed at Exh.303, where he has deposed that the petitioner was used to jetting with staff members and was also used to call Mr. Jayeshbhai, the night watchman to his chamber. The delinquent used to administer electricity shocks to the staff by starter of tube lights. The said witness has also admitted having recorded his statement before the Vigilance Officer at Exh.304. The reference was also made to the deposition of other witnesses Nos.23, 24, 26 and 30. In light of such evidence, which has come on record, the learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the Inquiry Officer has rightly observed that the Judicial Officer had behaved like a boss enjoying administering electric shock to his staff members, who was living in the 21st Century and in fact, was expected to behave like a man in the civilized society. The Inquiry Officer has, therefore, rightly arrived at a conclusion that such act of Judicial Officer having behaved like an uncivilized man, amounts to an act of misconduct as also an act of unbecoming of Judicial Officer, thereby attracting the penal provision of Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 5.8 Lastly, the learned Senior Advocate has invited our attention to the letter dated 02.09.2016 addressed by the Registrar, High Court to the delinquent informing him about the decision taken on administrative side along with the copy of report of Hon’ble Committee recommending imposing maximum punishment of dismissal from service. According to learned Senior Advocate, the respondent has duly complied with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. He therefore submitted that once the proper inquiry was conducted in light of the provisions prescribed, the only window, which was opened for challenge, in the facts of the case, stood closed. He therefore, submitted that no case for judicial review is made out to call for any interference in the present petition and has urged this Court to dismiss the case and to confirm the order of termination. REJOINDER OF PETITIONER : 6. In rejoinder, the learned advocate Mr. Vyas for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra). By highlighting the facts of the aforesaid case, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the High Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence or interfere with the conclusions in the inquiry proceedings. However, the same shall be applicable only if the proceedings are conducted in accordance with the law or the liability/ adequacy of the evidence is sufficiently proved or if there is some legal evidence on which the findings are based or correct error of fact, however, grave it may be or go into the proportionality of punishment, unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. According to him, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court can certainly consider whether inquiry held by the competent authority was in accordance with procedure established by law and principles of natural justice, whether irrelevant or extraneous considerations and/or exclusion of admissible or material evidence or admission of inadmissible evidence has influenced the decision rendering process making it vulnerable. The Court has also held that where the finding is wholly arbitrary and capricious based on no evidence, which no reasonable man could ever arrive at, the Court can examine the same. 6.1 The learned advocate once again referred to charge No.19 and the four witnesses examined against the petitioner and emphasized on the fact that though the delinquent had examined an expert as witness, his evidence has been totally ignored by the Inquiry Officer. Such approach of the Inquiry Officer amounts to violation of principles of natural justice as it gives an indication of mere empty formality of conducting the inquiry proceedings. Our attention was invited to the representation being made by the petitioner, which has not at all been dealt with by the respondent by the Committee while approving the inquiry report and imposing the maximum punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner. 6.2 At this stage, the learned advocate has submitted that the inquiry started based on four complaints. None of the said complaints referred to current incidents, which raises the framing of the charge, more particularly, charge No.19. The said charge was framed without any basis, in fact, lead questions were put by the Inquiry Officer. The reference was made to the reply given to the show cause notice on 14.11.2014 at page No.253, wherein, in fact, the petitioner has given detailed explanation in a charge wise manner. The said reply cum representation of the petitioner has been totally ignored, though it is observed in a single line that the objections have been considered as raised by the delinquent against the inquiry report. As no separate findings have been given to deal with non-consideration of such representation, much emphasis has been made by the learned advocate on the fact that the contentions with regard to violation of principles of natural justice have not been able to be dealt with by the Committee. As no separate findings have been given to deal with non-consideration of such representation, much emphasis has been made by the learned advocate on the fact that the contentions with regard to violation of principles of natural justice have not been able to be dealt with by the Committee. The learned advocate had further referred to two complaints, initially taken into consideration at the stage of starting of departmental proceedings against the petitioner. 6.3 According to the learned advocate, the same were not supplied to the petitioner, in fact, he applied for the copies of such complaints. He made a grievance that only a copy of complaint dated 04.10.2008 was furnished to the petitioner, whereas the second copy of the complaint was not provided. The reference was made to the withdrawal pursis produced on record at Page No.15, which indicates that even prior to lodging of the departmental proceedings, the applicant of the complaint disclosed his intention to withdraw the allegations made against the petitioner. The same was in fact, taken into consideration by the Additional District Judge. The aforesaid facts were placed for consideration before the High Court and the High Court took into consideration said report for his inspection and examination and issued show cause notice. In such circumstances, in absence of any material, which has been made available with the High Court to proceed with the departmental proceedings, was being not shared with the petitioner which vitiates the departmental inquiry. 6.4 Learned advocate has made an attempt to demonstrate that the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer was biased. Learned advocate has invited our attention to the fact that the summons were issued upon the delinquent on 20.09.2008. Initially, it intended only for the sub-ordinate staff, however, later on based on a complaint produced at Page No.28, the inquiry was ordered to be conducted qua the petitioner also. As against that, the petitioner had invited our attention to the document at Page No.38 of the paper book placed on record by the petitioner, which is a confidential letter dated 03.12.2008 addressed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge Mr. A.N. Vakil to the Registrar General of High Court of Gujarat tendering the report against the working of the petitioner at Shinor. The enclosure of the said letter refers to anonymous applications received on 25.09.2008 and 18.10.2008 as well as the report dated 24.10.2008 submitted by Mr. A.N. Vakil to the Registrar General of High Court of Gujarat tendering the report against the working of the petitioner at Shinor. The enclosure of the said letter refers to anonymous applications received on 25.09.2008 and 18.10.2008 as well as the report dated 24.10.2008 submitted by Mr. S.J. Sheth, Additional District Judge, Vadodara, whereas the rojkam produced at Page No.42 indicates that the reference was made only to report submitted by Additional District Judge, Vadodara Mr. S.J. Sheth bearing No. VC/726/239/08 dated 26.08.2008 wherein the learned Judge had already opined about no charge being established against the petitioner. He therefore, submitted that what actually transpired with the learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara has not been shared with the petitioner, which goes to indicate the bias inquiry undertaken by the respondent. 6.5 Lastly on the aspect of the proportionality of punishment, the learned advocate has submitted that with such nature of allegations viz., association of petitioner with the advocate without any substantial evidence of such association for purpose other than judicial, harassment to the sub-ordinate staff without any substantial evidence of mental or sexual harassment, which was otherwise alleged, are of trivial nature, which are according to the Inquiry Officer and the respondent even if being found to be proved against the petitioner, than also punishment imposed of termination is highly disproportionate. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Ram Vs. State of H.P. reported in (1983) 2 SCC 442 , more particularly, paragraph Nos.10 and 15 and in the case of Chairman Cum Managing Director Coal India Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Ors. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 620 , relevant observations made in Para 19. He therefore urged before us to consider his case for reinstatement followed by some minor penalty in case, if the court is not in complete agreement with quashing of the respective charges against the petitioner. ANALYSIS : 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length, the learned counsels were permitted to place on record their written submissions along with authorities. The short compilation of the relevant documents have been separately provided by the learned advocate for the petitioner, which has been taken upon record for ready reference. 8. ANALYSIS : 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length, the learned counsels were permitted to place on record their written submissions along with authorities. The short compilation of the relevant documents have been separately provided by the learned advocate for the petitioner, which has been taken upon record for ready reference. 8. We have carefully gone through the inquiry report and have also perused the relevant documents, which are forming part of the paper book. We have also taken into consideration the list of authorities relied upon by the learned counsels for the respective parties. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW : 9. Before considering the case of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to revisit the settled position of law with regard to scope of interference of the High Court in supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in cases involving the departmental proceedings. The settled legal position of scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings has been recently explained and revisited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. delivered in Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33423 of 2018). The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the scope of inquiry is only to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate.(State Bank of India vs. A.G.D. Reddy reported in 2023 (11) Scale 530). However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the courts while exercising the power of judicial review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, the courts are not powerless to interfere. (referred to United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee reported in (2022) 13 SCC 329 ). Lastly, the Court has also held that it would be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief if it concluded that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive; however, the Court clarified that each case will turn on its own facts. (relied upon : G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 , State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra). 10. (relied upon : G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 , State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra). 10. Having noticed the aforesaid legal position, we proceed with the issue which falls for our consideration as to whether the dismissal of the petitioner from the services pursuant to the departmental inquiry, was justified in the facts of the case? VALIDITY OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS : 11. This brings us to analyze the validity of the disciplinary proceedings. Essential would be to briefly analyze the facts of the case. As rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The origin of this dispute lies in the four complaints addressed, the details of which are as under : (A) Complaint dated 08.07.2008 (B) Application dated 10.10.2008 (C) Complaint dated 08.07.2010 (D) Undated anonymous application of 2010. 12. The perusal of the contents of each of these applications, which are otherwise forming part of the record in brief are reproduced as under: 12.1 This was the first complaint dated 08.07.2008 (VC No.263 of 2008) against the petitioner given by one litigant namely Subhashchandra J. Solanki who had appeared before the petitioner in a case notified in the court of the petitioner. One R.C.S. No.14 of 2008 was filed with regard to ancestral property of the complainant who was joined as defendant and had appeared before the Shinor Court, when the complainant had appeared in person, the petitioner as a Presiding Officer had asked him to re-cast his application for adjournment and had alleged at that stage that the Presiding Officer had pointed out fingers to engage advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel or other advocate by providing sum fees of Rs.500/- for getting adjournment. This act of the Presiding Officer was alleged to have committed misconduct and corrupt practice. 12.2 The second complaint which was addressed on 10.10.2008 was also given by an anonymous person against the petitioner. Referring to the various incidents raising serious concern for the character of the Presiding Officer and his association with lady bootleggers. The first complaint was responded by the petitioner by reply dated 04.10.2008 with relevant material annexed. The complaint was thereafter withdrawn on 10.10.2008. Referring to the various incidents raising serious concern for the character of the Presiding Officer and his association with lady bootleggers. The first complaint was responded by the petitioner by reply dated 04.10.2008 with relevant material annexed. The complaint was thereafter withdrawn on 10.10.2008. Though the complaint was withdrawn and the said fact was even confirmed even the complainant had appeared in person before the learned Additional District Judge, the learned Additional District Judge Shri. S.J. Sheth had submitted a report dated 15.01.2009 and placed reliance upon two complaints, one which was withdrawn i.e. dated 08.07.2008 and 04.10.2008. It has been contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the remarks made in the complaint, were treated as complaint against the petitioner though he was not named in the complaint. The aforesaid facts were not brought by the learned Principal District Judge before the High Court, more particularly, about the withdrawal of the complaint by one Mr. Shubashchandra J. Solanki. 12.3 With reference to an anonymous application dated 10.10.2008, the preliminary inquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner as without calling for any remarks from the petitioner and without examining any witness, the report dated 24.10.2008 was submitted against the petitioner. The said facts have transpired on record and the petitioner became aware about such undated application which was otherwise annexed along with a report submitted by the learned Additional District Judge on 24.10.2008. It was a pre-determined and bias approach on the part of the learned Principal District Judge and Additional District Judge against the petitioner as it is pointed out that the summons to the witnesses were issued on 20.09.2008 and the remaining two witnesses on 26.09.2008, which goes to indicate that even before receipt of the application on 25.09.2008, the witnesses have been called for. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the letter of the High Court bearing No. VC/326/239/2008 which clearly stated that the inquiry was to be conducted against the sub-ordinate staff for corrupt practices adopted by them. However, the inquiry was also conducted against the petitioner and was reported to the High Court. Thus, no charge in fact would have survived against the petitioner, who was posted at Shinor. However, the inquiry was also conducted against the petitioner and was reported to the High Court. Thus, no charge in fact would have survived against the petitioner, who was posted at Shinor. 12.4 Third complaint dated 08.07.2010, VC/329/2010, the allegations were with regard to the judicial order passed by the petitioner in connection with FIR bearing No.I-55/2010 for the offense alleged under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the I.P.C., the petitioner had passed the order releasing the accused on bail in an application moved before his court. In respect of the FIR in question, the inquiry was conducted, the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the learned Principal District Judge Mr. R.N. Malik, who after recording the statement of four witnesses, submitted a report dated 25.01.2011, wherein he recorded that the complaint regarding corrupt practices is not supported by any material evidence. Thus, no substance was found in the allegation made in the said complaint against the petitioner. Hence, there was no reason to frame the charge in connection with the said complaint. 12.5 The last application which is forming part of the record is an undated anonymous application made in the month of October-2010 (V.C. No.490 of 2010). The said application was looked into by Shri R. N. Malik, Additional District Judge and considering the remarks of the petitioner, had submitted his report on 25.11.2011. The allegations recording order of bail were made against the petitioner specifically the aspect of corrupt practice was examined and nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid allegation, Mr. Malik had inquired into the allegations made with regard to V.C.No.490 of 2010. In all 7 allegations made against the petitioner, out of which, the allegation of corrupt practice in passing of bail order was not believed in both the reports. So far as six other allegations were concerned, the related charges at Sr. No.1 as well as Sr. Nos.2 and 5 were framed, which has been treated as part proved or disproved. It is pertinent to note that before submitting the report, Mr. Malik has recorded the statements of various witnesses, and has arrived at a conclusion of having not been proved. Insofar as the application at Sr. No.1 is concerned, the said statements were not provided to the petitioner in spite of his demands. ANALYSIS OF PROCESS ADOPTED BY INQUIRY OFFICER : 13. Malik has recorded the statements of various witnesses, and has arrived at a conclusion of having not been proved. Insofar as the application at Sr. No.1 is concerned, the said statements were not provided to the petitioner in spite of his demands. ANALYSIS OF PROCESS ADOPTED BY INQUIRY OFFICER : 13. This brings us to the process of analysis of the charges imputed against the petitioner by the Inquiry officer. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that in all 23 charges were leveled against the petitioner, out of which, only 15 charges have been proved. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of dismissal mainly on the ground that the case is of no evidence and the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, is perverse. In order to examine the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, we have closely examined the inquiry report on the touchstone whether the decision making process is legitimate or the disciplinary authority has ignored the material evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal (supra) has held that the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings depends upon the specific nature of the charges leveled against the respondent and the explanation they provide. Charge Nos. I, II, III and VIII : 14. The brief analysis of the charge No.1 alleging his close association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel who was practicing at Shinor Court and frequently appeared in his court and the further allegations of having exploited such close relations and association for the purpose other than judicial, the Inquiry Officer has relied upon the evidence of witness Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20 and 33. 14.1 Indisputably all the above referred witnesses are either lawyers or staff members of the said court. The bare reading of the cross-examination of the witnesses imputes the allegations against the petitioner; however, that source of imputation is hearsay. The only fact which is culled out from their evidence is on such evidence of hearsay is that the petitioner was having close relation with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel. The bare reading of the cross-examination of the witnesses imputes the allegations against the petitioner; however, that source of imputation is hearsay. The only fact which is culled out from their evidence is on such evidence of hearsay is that the petitioner was having close relation with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel. The second part of the charge No.1 relates to the complaint filed by litigant namely Subhashchandra J. Solanki who had appeared in the court of delinquent in civil suit proceedings, where the allegations were made of making utterance of the words, thereby it was alleged that the delinquent had failed to maintain dignity and decorum of the court. As noticed earlier, the said witness had withdrawn his original complaint dated 08.07.2008, which was withdrawn prior to even initiation of the departmental proceedings. The said witness has appeared before the Inquiry Officer and has been examined as P.W. No.15 at Exh.179, wherein in cross-examination he has admitted that the petitioner did not utter any insulting words against him. In such circumstances, the second part of charge No.1 has rightly been held to have not been proved. So far as the first part of the charge No.1 is concerned, it is noticed that the department has not examined advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel with whom the close association of the delinquent has been alleged. 15. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the said charge over lapse with charge Nos. II, III and VIII are concerned, which involves the said advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel in three different incidents i.e. the dispute of parking of vehicle by Mr. Rakesh Patel in Shinor Police Station (charge No.III) with Mr. Bhikhabhbhai G. Parmar, who is driver of the police vehicle, recommending Mr. Subhashchandra J. Solanki (P.W. No.15) to engage any of the three advocates, which include Mr. Rakesh Patel sitting in his court (Charge No.II ) and under obligation of Mr. Rakesh Patel to enjoy at various places including farm at village- Sadhali (Charge No. VIII). Insofar as the charge No.2 imputed against the delinquent of raising fingers three advocates sitting in his court including Mr. Rakesh Patel thereby recommending Mr. Subhashchandra J. Solanki to engage lawyer and to pay sum of Rs.500/- for availing such legal services concerned, the evidence of the P.W. No.15 at Exh.179 denies having asked to engage advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel and to make such payment. Rakesh Patel thereby recommending Mr. Subhashchandra J. Solanki to engage lawyer and to pay sum of Rs.500/- for availing such legal services concerned, the evidence of the P.W. No.15 at Exh.179 denies having asked to engage advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel and to make such payment. It is further noticed from the cross-examination of the said evidence that the delinquent has not challenged the evidence of the said witness with regard to preparation of the adjournment application by the said advocate. In other words, it goes to suggest that the delinquent had reinstated said evidence to engage advocate sitting in his court, which include Mr. Rakesh Patel, who was present in the court and his further suggestion to make payment of Rs.500/- in a way of favoring the advocate; however, it has also been noticed that the complaint was made by the same witness namely Subhashchandra J. Solanki has subsequently been withdrawn though prior to the initiation of the departmental proceedings. Again, insofar as charge No.III imputed against the petitioner of favoring Mr. Rakesh Patel by compelling the P.S.I. Mr. M.M. Vasava to offer apology to Mr. Rakesh Patel on behalf of Mr. Bhikhabhai G. Parmar is concerned, the star witness of this charge P.W. No.14 -Bhikhabhai G. Parmar, who is the driver of the police officer at Exh.175 goes to suggest that he has admitted in his cross-examination that the delinquent did not ask the P.S.I. Mr. M.M. Vasava to apologize for and on his behalf. It is to be noted that ultimately the said witness had appeared before the Bar at Shinor Court and had made an apology leading to closure of chapter case against Rakesh Patel. It is to be noted that P.S.I. Mr. Vasava is not examined by the department. The aforesaid evidence of witness No.14- Bhikhabhai G. Parmar is required to be read along with the evidence of witness No.5 Mr. Pravinbhai Chhaganbhai Patel at Exh.54, who is the president of Bar Association and had deposed before the Inquiry Officer that the said police constable had met the delinquent in the chamber and thereafter, he had gone to appear and apologize. 16. Lastly, if one looks at the charge No.8 imputed against the petitioner, the Inquiry officer has found that the petitioner had a close association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel based on the testimony of multiple witnesses. 16. Lastly, if one looks at the charge No.8 imputed against the petitioner, the Inquiry officer has found that the petitioner had a close association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel based on the testimony of multiple witnesses. The aforesaid evidence has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition by contending that advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel was not examined by the department, and therefore, charge of having relationship with Mr. Rakesh Patel cannot be considered to have been proved. It is further contended before us that there is no substantial evidence regarding the alleged relationship with the petitioner. The concerns are also raised about the credibility of certain witnesses such as peon Mr. R.H. Shinde, whose evidence is questioned due to ongoing disciplinary issues and complaints received against him. It is also asserted that certain witnesses if closely read have given distorted facts before the Inquiry Officer. Hence casting doubt on the reliability. 17. The close perusal of the findings of the Inquiry Officer goes to suggest that such findings are arrived at upon appreciation of the evidence and the relevant material on record, which cannot be subject matter of judicial review. It is only for the purpose of satisfying ourselves about this incident, we have scrutinized the material to see as to what was reflected in the record. It is true that complaint/application submitted by witnesses Mr. Subhashchandra J. Solanki against the petitioner was withdrawn one cannot ignored the fact of association of the petitioner with Mr. Rakesh Patel followed by the incidents as reflected in the following charge at serial nos. 2, 3 and 8 are concerned. The incident of seeking apology by Mr. Bhikhabhai G. Parmar before the Bar at Shinor court relates to the involvement of Mr. Rakesh Patel in the core. The evidence of Mr. Pravinbhai Chhaganbhai Patel, who is the President of the Bar Association goes to suggest that Bhikhabhai G. Parmar had entered into the chamber and thereafter, he had gone to the Bar and had made an apology. 18. Considering three different charges imputed against the delinquent involving his association with Mr. Rakesh Patel, we do not find any error in the approach of the Inquiry Officer to conclude that the said charge was proved. The petitioner has challenged the finding of the Inquiry Officer by referring to the contents of the resolution of the Bar Association at Exh. Considering three different charges imputed against the delinquent involving his association with Mr. Rakesh Patel, we do not find any error in the approach of the Inquiry Officer to conclude that the said charge was proved. The petitioner has challenged the finding of the Inquiry Officer by referring to the contents of the resolution of the Bar Association at Exh. 59 to be read in light of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses No.14-Bhikhabhai G. Parmar wherein he has admitted that the petitioner had never asked the P.S.I. Mr. Vasava to offer apology on his behalf. In our opinion, this cannot be treated as an absolutely false charge leveled against the petitioner. Such interpretation of the evidence of the said witness is in light resolution of the Bar at Exh.59 as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner would amount to re-appreciation of the evidence and taking of second view, which is otherwise beyond the scope of judicial review. The challenge to the charge No.8 on the ground of credibility of the witnesses, which have otherwise been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer while accepting the said charge being proved against the delinquent, there is no substantial evidence of regarding the involvement of Mr. Rakesh Patel of having made arrangement to facilitate the delinquent of having party at form house at village- Sadhali and other places wherein women were kept present along with the presence of the sub-ordinate staff including the Nazir Mr. P.R. Shah and peons Mr. Raju Vasava and Mr. Shinde,are concerned, the Inquiry Officer has referred to the evidence of P.W. Nos.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and has recorded categorical finding in para No.25.8 at Page No.143 “It does not appear that the during the tenure of delinquent as Magistrate at Shinor, parties were arranged at Sadhli and at other places and ladies were invited to the parties and in the parties Nazir P.R. Shah, Peon Rajubhai Vasava and Shinde were attending.” “All the witnesses have not supported the charges and evidences have also not been brought on record to substantiate the charges leveled at serial No.8. Considering the depositions of witnesses, it can be seen that the depositions of these witnesses are on the basis of the hearsay and nobody has witnessed these incidents and they have only heard about these incidences and so the prosecution has failed to prove charge No.8.” 19. Considering the depositions of witnesses, it can be seen that the depositions of these witnesses are on the basis of the hearsay and nobody has witnessed these incidents and they have only heard about these incidences and so the prosecution has failed to prove charge No.8.” 19. Thus, the Inquiry Officer has specifically recorded that the department has failed to prove charge No. VIII. Having held so, the Inquiry Officer has held that the charge that the delinquent was having close association with Mr. Rakesh Patel is proved and the remaining charges are not proved. In our opinion, no error can be found with the approach of the Inquiry Officer and we are in complete agreement with regard to the charge alleged against the petitioner being proved. Thus, the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer with regard to charge Nos. I, II, III and VIII are hereby confirmed. 20. The learned advocate for the petitioner/delinquent has essentially challenged the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of the aforesaid charges mainly on the ground of no evidence by contending that multiple witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer were hearsay witnesses, and there was no direct evidence. Secondly, it is contended that the finding of the Inquiry Officer is absolutely perverse, in absence of any direct evidence. It is also contended that the credibility of the witness does not establish the alleged charge against the delinquent. In our opinion, the scope of judicial review while exercising supervisory writ jurisdiction against the order of dismissal arising out of a departmental proceedings, the adequacy of evidence, or the relationship of the evidence is not permissible to be canvassed before the court. In Union of India vs. H.C. Goel reported in AIR 1964 SC 364 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at page No.728 held that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari can be issued. In Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur reported in (1972) 4 SCC 618 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if there are some relevant material on the basis of which the authority has come to reasonable conclusion that the officer is guilty then it is not the function of the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 to review the material and arrived its own conclusion if the inquiry has been properly hold the question of adequacy or reliability of the witness cannot be canvassed before the High Court. Considering the aforesaid principles of law laid down, we are not inclined to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer insofar as charge Nos. I, II, III and VIII are concerned and are hereby confirmed. 21. Charge No. IV - You are alleged to have harassed Ms. Sarojben, Assistant working in your court at Shinor mentally and sexually. By Resolution No.(OFT)/1082/UO/1084/GH dated 02.08.1982, you are prevented from doing the acts mentioned in the said Resolution,but you did not follow the said resolution and compelled a female employee to work in odd hours and during holidays in order to compel her to give into your sexual and other demands, you served upon her notices/memos as mentioned in detail in imputation of the charges. The Inquiry Officer to substantiate this charge has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W. Nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 31 and 35. The most relevant of them is the evidence of a witness namely Ms. Sarojben, who has been examined as P.W. No.7. In her deposition, she has come out with specific stand that the delinquent has not harassed her sexually and mentally; however, she has stated on oath at Exh.84 before the Inquiry Officer that she knows many thing about the activities of the delinquent. The witness has stated that the delinquent had issued so many notices upon her and additional work allotted to her. The grievance is raised against the delinquent of calling her at 9:00 p.m. in the night for classification of work and to work beyond office hours i.e. till 12:00 p.m. night and when she had refused to attend the court for additional work, the delinquent had issued notices. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the delinquent was not harassing her sexually but in other ways, she was harassed. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the delinquent was not harassing her sexually but in other ways, she was harassed. In the light of the evidence of said witness, the Inquiry Officer has relied upon the Circular of the Government dated 10.08.1982, whereby instructions/directions are issued by the State Government with regard to female employees who should not be detained for office work after regular office hours. At the same time, it makes the provision for retaining female employees after office hours subject to the prior approval of the head of the department and shall not be detained for more than one hour after the office hours. Additionally, the Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the letters addressed by the learned Principal District Judge produced at Exhs.107 and 108, wherein directions were issued to complete the pending work in various courts under the administrative control of the Vadodara District, which was further instructed that such pending work should be completed by the Presiding Officer, under his personal supervision from the subordinate employees and the directions were issued to complete such work by calling the employees even on public holidays. Similar instructions were also issued in a letter dated 10.07.2009. 21.1 On overall appreciation of the evidence of the witness namely Ms. Sarojben in light of the cogent material as relied upon by the Inquiry Officer, the conclusion reached at by the Disciplinary Authority of holding the petitioner guilty of charge of misconduct is erroneous. As a Judicial Officer, he is expected to maintain devotion of duty. The letters of learned Principal District Judge at Exhs. 107 and 108 indicate that the instructions were issued to complete the pending work and liberty was granted to the Judicial Officers to engage the staff for such completion of work even on public holidays. The Government Resolution dated 10.08.1982 makes provision for detaining the female employees after office hours subject to the prior approval of the head of the department. In such circumstances, when the witnesses had admitted in her cross-examination that the delinquent was not harassing her sexually but in other ways i.e. engaging her in classification of work beyond office hours, cannot be termed as misconduct of the Judicial Officer. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer with regard to charge No. IV being proved against the petitioner/delinquent is hereby quashed and set aside. 22. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer with regard to charge No. IV being proved against the petitioner/delinquent is hereby quashed and set aside. 22. Charge No. V - You contacted Ms. Sarojben from Mobile No.8460378322 in order to know as to what statement, she has given before the Vigilance Officer. Because your such act, the witness Sarojben got frustrated. This act of yours if established, amounts interference in due process of inquiry, attempt to browbeat and threat and distracting the witness from giving statement against you. 22.1 The Inquiry Officer while considering the aforesaid charge has referred to and relied upon the evidence of witness Ms. Sarojben and the call details produced on record. The Inquiry Officer while examining the call details at Exh.386 noticed that on 07.02.2012 at about 6:50 p.m. that was the day on which the Vigilance Officer had recorded the statement of witness Ms. Sarojben, who has stated that the delinquent had called from his mobile No. 8460378322 to her number being 9723839248. The Inquiry Officer further noticed that the call had continued for 107 seconds, and thereafter, the delinquent had again called the said witness, which had continued for 465 seconds. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid document that the delinquent had spoken to the said witness for around 572 seconds. From the aforesaid material of call details, the Inquiry Officer has concluded that the delinquent had interfered with due process of inquiry and had made an attempt to brow-beat and threaten and distract the witness from giving statement against him. 22.2 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid evidence, which has emerged on record. Though, the call details at Exh.386 goes to suggest that the conversation had taken place between the delinquent and the witness on the day when the statement of the witness was recorded before the Vigilance Officer. However, there is no evidence with regard to the discussion, which might have taken place between the delinquent and the said witness. Though, the call details at Exh.386 goes to suggest that the conversation had taken place between the delinquent and the witness on the day when the statement of the witness was recorded before the Vigilance Officer. However, there is no evidence with regard to the discussion, which might have taken place between the delinquent and the said witness. Though, it is evident that delinquent had worked as Principal Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class for period of between year 2007 to 2009 at Shinor Court and witness Sarojben was working as a clerk at the same court campus and she was served with notices issued by the delinquent, there was no reason for the delinquent to come in contact with the witness after almost three years in the year-2012 and on the day, when her statement was recorded before the Vigilance Officer. At the same time, it is also evident that the conversation had taken place between them. Though, on the same day, when her statement was recorded before the Vigilance Officer, however, which was after recording of her statement at around 6:50 p.m. in the evening. Thus, after the statement of witness Sarojben was recorded, there was no purpose of calling the said witness with an intention of interfering with due process of inquiry, attempting to brow-beat and threaten or distract the witness from giving a statement against the delinquent. 22.3 In our opinion, considering the nature of charge alleged against the delinquent, the burden of proof was upon the department to lead such evidence in order to establish the same. The decision arrived at by the Inquiry Officer based on in absence of the direct evidence, does not establish the charge alleged against the delinquent and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. It would be relevant to mention that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the mobile No. 8460378322 belongs to the delinquent and/or the delinquent was the owner of the same. On the other hand, it has emerged on record that the said mobile number was of one Mr. Rafikbhai Sulemanbhai Vadgama, based at Surendranagar District, but the said witness has not been examined by the Disciplinary Authority. 23. Charge No. VII :- With a view to establish sexual relations with Ushaben wife of Bailiff Mr. Vijay C. Shah working in your court, you pressurized Ms. Rafikbhai Sulemanbhai Vadgama, based at Surendranagar District, but the said witness has not been examined by the Disciplinary Authority. 23. Charge No. VII :- With a view to establish sexual relations with Ushaben wife of Bailiff Mr. Vijay C. Shah working in your court, you pressurized Ms. Sarojben thrice to go to residence of Ushaben in absence of Vijaybhai for securing her mobile and land-line numbers. Asking a female employee working in your court to do such work, if establish, amounts to sexual harassment of woman at a work place within the meaning of Rule 3(B) of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. 23.1 So far as this charge is concerned, the Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the evidence of the witness Ms. Sarojben, who has deposed before the Inquiry Officer that she had heard that delinquent had gone behind Ms. Ushaben, wife of Bailiff-Mr. Vijay C. Shah, when she had gone to Malsar for worship by walking. The delinquent had asked Ms. Sarojben to get the telephone number of Ms. Ushaben. 23.2 Against the aforesaid finding of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner has raised a defense that the husband of the Ushaben was called with Mr. Dhiraj K. Vasava (peon) and Mr. Chetan Vasava (temporary xerox machine operator), who were providing xerox copies of old records by accepting illegal gratification for which the delinquent had reported to the District Court at Exhs. 125 and 156. In other words, the petitioner has challenged the credibility of the said witness, which according to us, is not permissible at this stage of the judicial review. However, upon consideration of the material on record, what has emerged on record, is that the delinquent had asked Ms. Sarojben to get the telephone number of Ms. Ushaben, which does not establish the allegation alleged in the charge framed against the delinquent with regard to sexual harassment of woman at work place within meaning of Rule 3(B) of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. Hence, the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer against the delinquent, is hereby quashed and set aside. 24. Charge No. VIII :- As per the details mentioned in imputation of charges, you under his obligation as you enjoyed with various parties arranged by him at village- Sadhali and other places wherein women and by also kept present for your enjoyment and fun along with Nazir-Mr. 24. Charge No. VIII :- As per the details mentioned in imputation of charges, you under his obligation as you enjoyed with various parties arranged by him at village- Sadhali and other places wherein women and by also kept present for your enjoyment and fun along with Nazir-Mr. P.R. Shah, Peons-Mr. Rajubhai Vasava and Mr. Shinde as mentioned in details imputation. Such act of yours, if established amounts to your failure to maintain absolute integrity as you had put yourself under obligation of advocate practicing in your Court, who was frequently appearing in your court and you were passing orders favourable to his clients as also you were recommending the litigants to engage Mr. Rakesh Patel in order to get favourable orders from you. 24.1 The Inquiry Officer while examining the aforesaid charges leveled against the petitioner, has taken into consideration the evidence of witnesses Nazir-Mr. P.R. Shah, Peons-Mr. Rajubhai Vasava and Mr. Shinde. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer has found that the petitioner had a close association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel. The Inquiry Officer has though noticed that challenge was made to their evidence in cross-examination, in a way credibility of such witnesses being impugned, has ultimately found merit in testimonies of these witnesses and has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner did have a close association with Mr. Rakesh Patel. 24.2 On overall appreciation of the evidence as against the allegations in the form of charge imputed against the delinquent, undoubtedly, the association of the delinquent with the advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel has emerged on record. However, the further allegations of enjoying parties at private farms in company of women by taking favors from advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel has not been established in absence of any evidence being brought on record, the defense was raised by challenging the credibility of the witnesses by highlighting that they have misrepresented the facts in the court proceedings, thereby casting doubt on their reliability. However, it is settled principles of law that the adequacy and the credibility of the witnesses cannot be a subject matter of examination at the stage of judicial review under supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. 24.3 In our opinion, in absence of any direct evidence being brought on record establishing the allegations against the petitioner, we hold that the department has failed to prove the said charge against the petitioner. 25. 24.3 In our opinion, in absence of any direct evidence being brought on record establishing the allegations against the petitioner, we hold that the department has failed to prove the said charge against the petitioner. 25. Charge No. IX : - The delinquent a Judicial Officer is accused of deliberately harassing Mr. Suthar, Assistant of the Civil Court in Shinor by assigning him work late in the evening, despite having pending tasks well in advance, and compelling him to complete the work on the same day. This behavior is deemed unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. 25.1 While examining the aforesaid charge, the Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the testimony of witness Mr. Y.H. Suthar (Witness No.16). The aforesaid evidence of witness, who has alleged harassment by the petitioner including late issuance of work, withholding of letters and administering threats is appreciated by the Inquiry Officer in light of his statement before the Vigilance Officer at Exh.186 along with the supporting documents produced at Exhs. 255 and 256, which are the notices repeatedly issued by the delinquent to Mr. Y.H. Suthar. Thus, the Inquiry Officer has found the corroborative material as against the testimonies of the witnesses and has arrived at a conclusion that the charge has been proved against the delinquent. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid finding of the Inquiry Officer by contending that the issuance of notice upon Mr. Y.H. Suthar was due to his unsatisfactory performance as evident by his late arrivals and unreadable handwriting. The defense has placed on record documents at Exhs. 99, 101, 465, 112, 246, 249 and 252, which goes to suggest that the delinquent being the Judicial Officer under whom Mr. Suthar was working as within its right to issue such notices which relate to the conduct of the employee. The credibility of the allegations made by the said witness has been challenged in absence of any specific details with regard to the nature of allegation in reference to the time and place of harassment. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner. The issuance of the notice as contended by the Judicial Officer, thus, falls within the authority of the Judicial Officer in case where the employee fails to discharge his duty. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner. The issuance of the notice as contended by the Judicial Officer, thus, falls within the authority of the Judicial Officer in case where the employee fails to discharge his duty. The documents placed on record by the delinquent does suggest a pattern of disciplinary issues, which reflects mala fide intention on part of the said witness making allegations against the delinquent. 25.2. We are conscious of our jurisdiction of judicial review, which otherwise does not permit us to take a second view as against the finding and the conclusion of the disciplinary authority. However, at the same time, noticing the mala fide intention, this Court can always examine as to whether the disciplinary authority acting reasonably could have arrived at such a conclusion or finding with such material on record, the same can always be reviewed in present proceedings. Hence, we are of the opinion that on the touchstone of reasonability, such conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority, is unacceptable and is hereby quashed and set aside. 26. Charge No. X :- The delinquent compelled Mr. Vijaykumar Panchal, an advocate from Dabhoi to provide refreshments to him and to your staff and the order of such refreshment on behalf of Mr. Vijaykumar Panchal and compelled him to pay bills. You also consumed tobacco, pan masala at the cost of Mr. Vijaykumar Panchal. 26.1 While examining the aforesaid charge alleged against the delinquent, the Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the testimony of witness No.33-Vijaykumar B. Panchal. The deposition of the said witness goes to suggest that the delinquent compelled him to provide refreshment such as tea snacks, even tobacco and pan masala and paid the bills. Based on his testimony and the circumstances pointed out by the said witness, the Inquiry Officer has ignored the challenge of the credibility of such witness. It is contended before us that in cross-examination, the said witness has denied signing blank papers or being influenced by the warnings. By challenging the credibility of the said witness, it is submitted that the charge is based on hearsay evidence and no concrete evidence or any documentary proof has been brought on record to establish the charge alleged. We have considered the aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and have also considered the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. We have considered the aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and have also considered the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. In our opinion, this would amount to re-appreciation of the evidence or taking up of different view, which is beyond the scope of judicial review, no fault/infirmity can be found with recording of finding of the Inquiry Officer and we therefore, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and the same is hereby confirmed. 27. Charge No. XV :- You failed to maintain dignity and decorum of the court as you are found to be consuming tobacco, pan masala and gutka on the dias of the Court and then for the purpose of spitting the same out, you used to retire from the dias and loitered in the lobby outside and used to occupy the chair of Nazir or other staff members. 27.1 The said charge in a way over lapse with the charge No.14, insofar as consuming of tobacco, pan masala and gutka on dias is concerned, the Inquiry Officer has referred to multiple witnesses including witness Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 33, 36, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 30. Apart from the aforesaid oral testimonies, the Inquiry Officer has referred to their written statements produced at Exhs.37, 44, 50, 80, 85, 140, 169, 174, 355, 393, 272, 295, 299, 301, 309, 314, 327, 331 and 339. The petitioner has raised defense by referring to the surprise visits conducted by the Principal District Judges while he was posted at Shinor and Bhachau, wherein the petitioner was found on dias and no complaint with regard to consuming the tobacco, pan masala and gutka on dias was reported. The explanation put forward by the petitioner with regard to loitering in the court campus, is concerned, it is contended that in order to take surprise visits of the working of sub-ordinate staff on a few occasions, he had retired from the dias and loitered in the lobby outside. The reference is made to the incidences of non-performing of the work by sub-ordinate staff to justify his action. The reference is made to the incidences of non-performing of the work by sub-ordinate staff to justify his action. In our opinion, considering the evidence of the witnesses referred to and relied upon by the Inquiry Officer, and the explanation put forward by the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was no evidence to deny such charge against the petitioner. Consuming of tobacco, pan masala and gutka by the Judicial Officer on the dias, such behavior cannot be expected from the Judicial Officer who is otherwise expected to display judicial decorum. This certainly amounts to misconduct. 28. Charge No. XVI :- It was brought to our notice that once Sections 326 and 307 of I.P.C. is invoked or invokable, you lost jurisdiction to hear the case of I.P.C. bail or otherwise, however, deliberately ignoring the legal position, you enlarged the accused on bail in Criminal Case No.916 of 2010, despite the fact that victim had grievous injuries and was under treatment in hospital within your knowledge and ultimately, the victim died. 28.1 The Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the copy of FIR and related documentary evidence produced at Exhs.277 to 279, the Inquiry Officer has also been examined as witness at Exh. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no possibility of addition of Sections 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. The complainant has examined witness No.28-Lakshman Prabhubhai Koli at Exh.332. Indisputably, the application seeking bail at the instance of the accused, considering the nature of the offense alleged, was to be tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The investigation case papers corroborates depositions of the Officer about absence of addition of charge under Sections 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. at a relevant stage. In such circumstances, no error can be found with the approach of the learned Magistrate, who has acted within the four corners of law and has exercised his discretion enlarging the accused on bail. Even otherwise, no special circumstances have been pointed out by the department of the petitioner of having acted in an illegal manner or involving himself in corrupt practice. In our opinion, no evidence worth has been adduced by the department to establish the alleged charge against the delinquent. We therefore, discharge the delinquent from the aforesaid charge. 29. Charge No. XVII - You got favours from Gurukrupa Guest House, whose owner Mr. In our opinion, no evidence worth has been adduced by the department to establish the alleged charge against the delinquent. We therefore, discharge the delinquent from the aforesaid charge. 29. Charge No. XVII - You got favours from Gurukrupa Guest House, whose owner Mr. Paresh P. Joshi and Mr.Jigar Joshi were accused in Criminal Case No.741 of 2001 filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act by accepting tiffin meals from Mr. Paresh M. Joshi while the said case was going on in your court. 29.1 In order to substantiate this charge, the Inquiry Officer has relied upon the testimonies of prosecution witness Nos.18, 19, 25 and 36. As against that, the delinquent has examined Mr. Paresh Joshi who was the owner of Gurukrupa Guest House as defense witness. By relying upon the aforesaid evidence of the witness, it is submitted before us that the Inquiry Officer in an absolutely perverse manner discarded aforesaid evidence by observing that such evidence was given out of his relationship with delinquent in order to help the delinquent. 29.2 Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the petitioner has brought on record evidence of Shankarlal @ Sakarchand Shivji Davda, Damyantiben Dineshbhai Thakkar and Jayshreeben Navingbhai Thakkar from whom he used to collect tiffin. The documentary evidence at Exhs. 281, 415 to 417, 447, 450, 451, 478 and 518 have been relied upon. Upon close reading of the evidence and prosecution Nos.18, 19, 25 and 36 and their statements recorded by the Vigilance Officer, it has transpired that witness Nos.18, 19 and 25 appears to be the lawyers practicing at Bhachau Court whereas witness No.36 is the Vigilance Cell Officer. The testimonies of all these witnesses establish that Mr. Paresh Joshi was the owner of Gurukrupa Guest House and the tiffin was delivered from the said hotel to the delinquent. It is also evident that said Mr. Paresh Joshi was an accused for the offense punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act. The case was pending consideration before the court where the delinquent was attached as Judicial Officer. As against this, the Judicial Officer has made reference about Criminal Case No.741 of 2001 pending at Bhachau, which fact has been disproved by the delinquent by producing certificate at Exh.447, which clearly shows that no such Criminal Case No.741 of 2001 was registered with Bhachau Court. As against this, the Judicial Officer has made reference about Criminal Case No.741 of 2001 pending at Bhachau, which fact has been disproved by the delinquent by producing certificate at Exh.447, which clearly shows that no such Criminal Case No.741 of 2001 was registered with Bhachau Court. The defense had placed on record the affidavits of three witnesses namely Shankarlal @ Sakarchand Shivji Davda, Damyantiben Dineshbhai Thakkar and Jayshreeben Navingbhai Thakkar. The delinquent had applied before the Inquiry Officer to permit him to examine the said witnesses as defense witness, in order to meet him with the charge alleged against him. Though initially such application was allowed, however, later on, the application for re-issuance of summons was not entertained and was rejected as evident from Exh.478. This according to the delinquent amounts to violation of principles of natural justice as no sufficient opportunity was granted to the delinquent to disprove the said charge. Considering the aforesaid submission, in our opinion, the Inquiry Officer committed serious error in ignoring the statement of the aforesaid proposed witnesses which the delinquent intended to examine, more particularly, their affidavits which have been placed on record at Exhs.415, 416 and 417. Additionally, the charge framed against the delinquent is successfully disproved in light of the document produced at Exh.447, which is the certificate issued by the Bhachau Court indicating the fact that no such criminal case as alleged was registered with the said court. Noticing the aforesaid facts, we are of the firm view that charge framed against the delinquent is vague and is hereby quashed and set aside. 30. Charge No. XIX - The charge is that the delinquent administered electric shocks to Mr. Devabhai R. Bhalani, Mr. M.H. J oshi and Mr. P.C. Joshi, peons and Mr. Tanvir Meer, night watchman of the Bhachau court to get sadistic pleasure and physically harassed them in the court premises and this act of delinquent amounts to an act of misconduct as also an act of unbecoming of Judicial Officer. 30.1 The Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the testimonies of witness Nos.21, 23, 24, 26 and 30 and their statements recorded by the Vigilance Officer at Exhs.304, 312, 314 and 339 and the reports of the Principal District Judges, Kachchh Bhuj produced at Exhs. 345, 346 and 362 has also been taken into consideration. 30.1 The Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the testimonies of witness Nos.21, 23, 24, 26 and 30 and their statements recorded by the Vigilance Officer at Exhs.304, 312, 314 and 339 and the reports of the Principal District Judges, Kachchh Bhuj produced at Exhs. 345, 346 and 362 has also been taken into consideration. The petitioner has raised the defense before the Inquiry Officer by bringing on record the evidence of the expert witness i.e. Sunil Parikh, who was working as Deputy Engineer with MGVCL. The said witness has categorically stated that no sensation of electric current by the tube light starter. The Inquiry Officer seems to have discarded or rather ignored the aforesaid evidence of the expert witness and has taken into consideration the evidence of the delinquent, who has admitted of doing jetting with the sub-ordinate staff. 30.2 The Inquiry Officer has concluded by observing that delinquent being a Judicial Officer, such act of the officer does not bring good reputation to the post. In our opinion, the aforesaid approach of the Inquiry officer is not proper. The finding of the Inquiry Officer is purely based on admission of delinquent and ignoring the evidence of the expert witness. We also take notice of the fact that the departmental proceedings were based on four complaints and opinion of these complaints, a reference was made to this particular incident against the petitioner. Thus, no personal information was derived by the Vigilance Officer at the stage of the initial inquiry. This gives us an impression that the Inquiry Officer conducted the departmental inquiry in a biased and predetermined manner and hence, we are inclined to quash and set aside the aforesaid charge being framed against the petitioner. 31. PUNISHMENT : Having analyzed the approach of the inquiry officer in dealing the respective charges and the findings of the Inquiry Officer on each of these charges, brings us to the later part of the departmental proceedings i.e. the determination of punishment of termination of services as against the charges proved against the delinquent. 31. PUNISHMENT : Having analyzed the approach of the inquiry officer in dealing the respective charges and the findings of the Inquiry Officer on each of these charges, brings us to the later part of the departmental proceedings i.e. the determination of punishment of termination of services as against the charges proved against the delinquent. The petitioner has challenged the departmental proceedings and the consequential order of termination by raising a defense of no evidence against the petitioner, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer being perverse, the basis of initiation of the departmental inquiry being biased on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, by not providing fair opportunity to defend, the Vigilance Officer having acted in a biased and predetermined manner, has also challenged the imposition of punishment of termination as shockingly disproportionate. 32. According to the case of the petitioner, the bare reading of the charge alleged are of trivial nature. Even if they are accepted to have been proved against the petitioner then also it at least does not deserve the order of maximum punishment of termination. 33. Before we proceed further, at this stage, we may observe that the order manifests the miscarriage of justice where there is no evidence at all or the adjudication on merit is vitiated on the basis of violation of principles of natural justice. It is true that disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial and the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof of reasonable doubt. At the same time, it is also expected that such material on record may at least lead to draw the inference which a reasonable person would draw from the proof of facts of the case. The imposition of punishment in the departmental proceedings is very restricted. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an act of the legislature or the rules framed under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is for the competent authority only to take appropriate decisions as to what punishment would meet the ends of justice and the Court has no power to substitute its own discretion for that authority. Thus, it is for the competent authority only to take appropriate decisions as to what punishment would meet the ends of justice and the Court has no power to substitute its own discretion for that authority. Unless, it is mala fide or extraneous or it is demonstrated to be highly disproportionate, this Court has no jurisdiction to venture into the imposition of penalty/punishment. 34. Having noticed the respective charges framed against the petitioner, who was holding the post of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, it is argued that the same cannot be treated to be of grave nature. Indisputably, as a Judicial Officer, the petitioner was conferred a position of trust where the essential elements of character, honesty and integrity are the inbuilt requirements of functioning of the judiciary. In such circumstances, there is very limited scope to deal with the matter leniently and any misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. 35. In the case of Sardar Bahadur (supra), the Supreme Court held that if there are some relevant materials on the basis of which, the authority has come to the reasonable conclusion that the Officer is guilty, then it is not the function of the High Court in exercise its power under Article 226 to review the material and arrive at its own conclusion. If the Inquiry has been properly held, the question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. The Supreme Court held that If the order of the punishing authority could be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanor for which the particular punishment could be imposed, it is not the function of the court to consider whether the charge proved alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. The Court is not concerned to decide whether the punishment imposed was just and proper provided it is justified by the rules and is considered to be appropriate having regard to the misdemeanor established. It is only if the Court finds for punishment is such that it shocks the conscience of the court then can interfere with it. The Court is not concerned to decide whether the punishment imposed was just and proper provided it is justified by the rules and is considered to be appropriate having regard to the misdemeanor established. It is only if the Court finds for punishment is such that it shocks the conscience of the court then can interfere with it. While dealing with the case of judicial review of state action, the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors reported in 1987 (4) SCC 611 , laid irrationality and perversity of the decision as recognized grounds of judicial review. Apart from the three grounds on which the administrative action was held to be subject to the supervision of judicial review which is illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, the Court also considered the ground of proportionality i.e. the Court agreed that proportionality could be the core potential ground for judicial review. 36. The Hon’ble Committee in the facts of the case, upon analysis of the charges proved against the petitioner arrived at a finding that the action of the delinquent were ‘unbecoming of the Judicial Officer’ and thereby recommended the maximum punishment of dismissal from service to the delinquent under Rule 6 (8) of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1971. SUMMARY OF CHARGES AS CONFIRMED / PROVED : 37. For the reasons assigned by us, while analyzing of the charges proved against the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings, the summary of the charges, which are confirmed and are accepted as proved, are reproduced as under: Sr. No. Charges Findings Remarks 1 Charge No. I- You maintained close association with advocate Mr. Rakesh K. Patel practicing at Sinor Court, who frequently appeared in your court. The detailed facts showing your close associations with Mr. Rakesh Patel are mentioned in the imputation of charges. You and Mr. Rakesh Patel exploited such close relation and association for the purpose other than Judicial. In Civil Suit No. 14/2008 which was listed in your court, Mr. Subhashchandra Jivanlal .Solanki applied for adjournment and you from the dais of the court made following utterances in Gujarati "Sala Bhangdao Mari Jasho And Har Th44Sho". Thereby you failed to maintain the dignity and decorum of the court. Findings and conclusions drawn by the inquiry officer is based on relevant material viz. Subhashchandra Jivanlal .Solanki applied for adjournment and you from the dais of the court made following utterances in Gujarati "Sala Bhangdao Mari Jasho And Har Th44Sho". Thereby you failed to maintain the dignity and decorum of the court. Findings and conclusions drawn by the inquiry officer is based on relevant material viz. though hearsay witnesses who are mainly lawyers from the bar and staff members. Their evidence to the extent of close association with advocate Rakessh Patel has been brought on record. challenge on ground of specific finding at para 25.9 “but it is not proved that keeping the relationship Mr. Rakesh Patel has obtained all orders in favour of him “, milds down the gravity of the allegations as regards proportionality of punishment to be imposed. Proved and Confirmed 2. Charge No. II- After uttering the words as mentioned in Article 1, you recommended to the litigant of Civil Suit No. 14/2008 to engage an advocate by pointing out a finger towards three advocates sitting in your Court. You pointed out your finger in particular to Mr. Rakesh K. Patel, who was sitting in the court and recommended Mr. Subhashchandra J. Solanki to engage him and to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to him and Mr. S. J. Solanki obliged under your compulsion. Though witness no. 15 Subhashcndra Solanki has turned hostile and in is cross examination, the defense has successfully brought his denial about delinquent having asked him to pay Rs. 500 to advocate Rakesh Patel, however, the close reading of the evidence of said witness suggest that there is no challenge to the fact Advocate Rakesh Patel had prepared an adjournment application for said witness. Such evidence is sufficient to raise the preponderance of probability about allegations leveled against the delinquent. Proved and Confirmed 3. Charge No. III- In the matter of dispute regarding parking of vehicle by Mr. Rakesh Patel in Sinor Police Station on or around 22nd of July, 2008, you favoured Mr.Rakesh Patel and compelled PSI Mr. M.M. Vasava to offer apology to Mr.Rakesh Patel on behalf of Mr. Bhikhabhai G. Parmar as mentioned in detail in imputation of charges and the documentary evidence supplied to you. Thereby you misused your authority as a Judicial Officer to sustain your relations and close association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel. The close reading of Pw no. 5 Mr. Pravinbhai Chaganbhai Patel at EXH. Bhikhabhai G. Parmar as mentioned in detail in imputation of charges and the documentary evidence supplied to you. Thereby you misused your authority as a Judicial Officer to sustain your relations and close association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel. The close reading of Pw no. 5 Mr. Pravinbhai Chaganbhai Patel at EXH. 54 suggests that the delinquent had played a role from inception to conclusion of strike of the Bar. The stirring incident pertains to parking row of vehicle by advocate rakesh Patel in police station with PI Mr. M.M. Vasava. One more incident showing association of the delinquent with advocate concern. Proved and Confirmed 4. Charge No. X- Delinquent compelled Mr. Vi jaykumar Panchal, an advocate from Dabhoi to provide refreshments to you and to your staff and you ordered such refreshments on behalf of Shri Viyaykumar Panchal and compelled him to pay bills. You also consumed tobacco, pan masala at the cost of Mr. Vijaykumar Panchal. The Inquiry Officer has relied upon the evidence of witness PW no. 33 at EXH. 354 Vijayakumar {anchal whose evidence has remained unshaken. Confirmed 5. Charge No. XV-You failed to maintain dignity and decorum of the Court as you were found to be consuming tobacco, pan masala and Gutka on the dais of the Court and then for the purpose of spitting the same out, you used to retire from the dais and loitered in the lobby outside and used to occupy the chair of Nazir or other staff members. Specific statements about chewing tobacco, pan and gutka by delinquent have been made by most of the witnesses vz. PW no. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 33, 36, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 30. The same has remained unshaken. Thus, the finding and conclusion of aforesaid charge being proved is based on the evidence as emerged on record. However, the petitioner has referred and relied upon surprise visits done by the learned Principal District Judges where no such incident has been reported. Also, reliance is placed on various instances whereby the subordinate staff have been served with memos about their non performance of court work duty. The related documentary evidence at EXH. 99 to 101, 275, 280 to 285, 292, 448 to 451, 470, 518, 534 are relied upon. The evidence of defense witnesses DW no. 1,2,9,10,11 and 14 are relied upon. Also, reliance is placed on various instances whereby the subordinate staff have been served with memos about their non performance of court work duty. The related documentary evidence at EXH. 99 to 101, 275, 280 to 285, 292, 448 to 451, 470, 518, 534 are relied upon. The evidence of defense witnesses DW no. 1,2,9,10,11 and 14 are relied upon. The inquiry officer has ignored the aforesaid material [laced for consideration while accepting the charge against the delinquent. Ultimately, it cannot be said that finding is based on no evidence, however, fair consideration has not been met while concluding the said charge being proved. This gives the impression of biased or predetermined inquiry in violation of principles of natural justice. Misconduc t Proved 38. As noticed by us, the charge No. I (Part-I), charge Nos. II, III and VIII are having a common thread of allegations involving the delinquent and close association with advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel. It is discernible from the close scrutiny of the record that the evidence of the most of the witnesses examined as regards aforesaid charge is of ‘hearsay’ nature. In our opinion, there is a common say of these witnesses that delinquent kept close association with advocate Rakesh Patel. However, there is no clinch of evidence which can be given due weightage as proof of fact that such close association had traversed to the extent of exploiting the relationship for some extraneous considerations. With such nature of evidence on record, we are called upon to examine the validity of the imposition of maximum punishment of termination. So far as the Charge No.X of compelling witness No.33- Vijaykumar B. Panchal, advocate from Dabhoi to provide refreshments to delinquent and his staff and payment of bills as well as consuming of tobacco, pan masala and gutka at his cost are concerned, the Inquiry Officer based on the testimony of the said witness has found sufficient evidence to support the said charge and has thereby held him guilty. 39. On the other hand, the petitioner has challenged by highlighting the error in the inquiry process including the failure to consider relevant evidence, misinterpretation of facts and dismissal of defense witness without adequate reasoning in a way the credibility of the witness No.33 has been impinged. 39. On the other hand, the petitioner has challenged by highlighting the error in the inquiry process including the failure to consider relevant evidence, misinterpretation of facts and dismissal of defense witness without adequate reasoning in a way the credibility of the witness No.33 has been impinged. At this stage, for the purpose of determination of imposition of punishment of termination as against the quality of the evidence of such witnesses concerned, there are no strict and technical rules of evidence and procedure applicable to the departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India vs Dilip Paul delivered in Civil Appeal No.6190 of 2023, has observed as under: “In view of this unequivocal and clear proposition of law set out in Rathan Singh (supra), it could be said that there was no legal bar on the Central Complaints Committee to look into the allegations levelled in the second complaint dated 18.09.2012. Since strict and technical rule of evidence and procedure does not apply to departmental enquiry the connotation “evidence” cannot be understood in a narrow technical sense as to include only that evidence adduced in a regular court of law when a person is examined as a witness by administering oath. There should not be any allergy to “hearsay evidence” provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.” Thus, even the ‘hearsay’ witness can be considered as sufficient evidence for the purpose of establishing charge against the delinquent in so far as charge no. I, II, III and VIII are concerned. The last charge, which we have confirmed is charge No. XV, whereby the charge relates to maintaining the dignity and decorum of the court and the same being treated as misconduct. For the reasons stated earlier, the said charge has been confirmed against the delinquent. 40. In order to appreciate the angle of proportionate imposition of punishment, in light of the nature of allegations of misconduct against the delinquent, we cannot ignore the fact that the delinquent was holding the status of Judicial Officer. There cannot be any iota of doubt subordinate judiciary is a bedrock on which stands the entire edifice of justice. It is undoubtedly the foundation of the ‘judicial system’. There cannot be any iota of doubt subordinate judiciary is a bedrock on which stands the entire edifice of justice. It is undoubtedly the foundation of the ‘judicial system’. The Judicial Officers associated with the sub-ordinate judiciaries being situated at the grass root level of the society are apparently in touch with the litigants and symbolizes the face of the justice delivery system. As members of the judicial service, they are always expected to adhere to their oath to perform their sacred duty of dispensing justice, to be performed religiously consistently with ethics and in accordance with rule and law. Judgeship is a privilege and with such privilege comes certain duties and obligations attached with this post. The conduct of Judicial Officers has to be above reproach; the judgeship expects a high level of punctuality, patience, courageousness, impartiality, and fearlessness. The act of the Judicial Officer of consuming tobacco, pan masala and gutka on the dias of the courtroom in uncertain terms put downs the dignity and decorum of the court and absolutely not pardonable. The Judicial Officers discharge a very sensitive and important constitutional role. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated aforesaid principles. 41. In the case of C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors reported in 1995 SCC (5) 457, the Supreme Court has observed as under : “Judicial office is essentially a public trust. Society is, therefore, entitled to expect that a Judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and required to have moral vigour, ethical firmness and impervious to corrupt or venial influences. He is required to keep the most exacting standards of propriety in judicial conduct. Any conduct which tends to undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court would be deleterious to the efficacy of judicial process. Society, therefore, expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a Judge. Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary, as wholesome standard of conduct which would generate public confidence, accord dignity to the judicial office and enhance public image, not only of the Judge but the court itself. It is, therefore, a basic requirement that a Judge's official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. It is, therefore, a basic requirement that a Judge's official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. The standard of conduct is higher than expected of a layman and also higher than expected of an advocate. In fact, even his private life must adhere to high standards of probity and propriety, higher than those deemed acceptable for others. Therefore, the Judge can ill-afford to seek shelter from the fallen standard in the society.” 42. Even recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Sadhna Chaudhary vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2020 SC 2542 , reiterated the aforesaid standards of conduct and essential criteria of the behavior of Judicial Officers. The relevant of the same reads as under: “19. Even furthermore, there are no two ways with the proposition that Judges, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. Judicial officers do discharge a very sensitive and important constitutional role. They not only keep in check excesses of the executive, safeguard citizens’ rights and maintain law and order. Instead, they support the very framework of civilised society. It is courts, which uphold the law and ensure its enforcement. They instil trust of the constitutional order in people, and ensure the majesty of law and adherence to its principles. Courts hence prevent people from resorting to their animalistic instincts, and instead provide them with a gentler and more civilised alternative of resolving disputes. In getting people to obey their dicta, Courts do not make use of guns or other (dis)incentives, but instead rely on the strength of their reasoning and a certain trust and respect in the minds of the general populace. Hence, it is necessary that any corruption or deviation from judicial propriety by the guardians of law themselves, be dealt with sternly and swiftly.” 20. It has amply been reiterated by this Court that judicial officers must aspire and adhere to a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity. Very recently in Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra, a Division Bench of this Court very succinctly collated these principles and reiterated that: “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. 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: (SCC p. 203) “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 justice delivery system resulting in the failure of public confidence in the system. It must be remembered that woodpeckers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside.” 6. The behaviour of a Judge has to be of an exacting standard, both inside and outside the court. This Court in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad, (1987) 3 SCC 1 :1987 SCC (L&S) 132] held thus: (SCC p.1) “Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and another 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.” 7. 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. 8. Judges must remember that they are not merely employees but hold high public office. In R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P., (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: (SCC p. 70, para 29) “29. 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 following observations of this Court are relevant: (SCC p. 70, para 29) “29. 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 secured that the 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 the rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty.” 9. 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. 10. 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. 21. We are also not oblivious to the fact that mere suspicion cannot constitute ‘misconduct’. Any ‘probability’ of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, even though the standard of proof would obviously not be at par with that in a criminal trial. While applying these yardsticks, the High Court is expected to consider the existence of differing standards and approaches amongst different judges. Any ‘probability’ of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, even though the standard of proof would obviously not be at par with that in a criminal trial. While applying these yardsticks, the High Court is expected to consider the existence of differing standards and approaches amongst different judges. There are innumerable instances of judicial officers who are liberal in granting bail, awarding compensation under MACT or for acquired land, backwages to workmen or mandatory compensation in other cases of tortious liabilities. Such relief oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer.” 43. In view of the aforesaid decisions laying down the standards of conduct expected from the Judicial Officers, we needs to verify as to whether the charge having accepted to be proved of having association with advocate Rakesh Patel, consuming tobacco, pan masala and gutka on dias of the courtroom whether amounts to misconduct in terms of Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971. At this stage, appropriate would be to revisit the relevant observations of this Court in the case of Bodu Tarmamad vs. Dist. Suptd. Of Police, Jamnagar & Anr. reported in 1988 (1) GLH 406 , as regards interpretation of provisions of Rule 3(iii) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971: “12. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by this Court (Coram : N. H. Bhatt, J.) in the case of Karsanbhai D. Parmar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others, in Special Civil Application No. 221 of 1983 decided on September 24, 1985, (1986) GLT 87 (G.H.C.). In that case it is observed to the effect that to keep a mistress is not misconduct for a policeman, and whatever is immoral or improper in a given society cannot necessarily be branded as misconduct. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in the aforesaid case before this High Court no advocate of either side appeared. Moreover, the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal (supra) have been applied out of context. In his submission it would be improper for a Government servant to keep a mistress and such conduct would certainly be unbecoming of a Government servant. Be that as it may. That is not these case before me. Moreover, the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal (supra) have been applied out of context. In his submission it would be improper for a Government servant to keep a mistress and such conduct would certainly be unbecoming of a Government servant. Be that as it may. That is not these case before me. Therefore, even if the correctness of the aforesaid decision of this High Court is doubted, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Rasiklal's case (supra) are required to be followed and applied. Therefore, even if both the counts of charge against the petitioner are admitted or are held proved, it can never be said that the same constitutes misconduct 'unbecoming of a Government servant.' 13. The word 'unbecoming' is not defined in the Rules in question. Therefore, we have to go by the dictionary meaning of the word. Dictionary meaning of the word 'unbecoming' is 'indecorous, not proper or befitting, not suited to the wearer'. In the context of the Rules it would mean either 'indecorous' or 'not proper or befitting'. However, while considering the conduct of a Government servant it is to be kept in mind that the conduct should be indecorous or improper as a Government servant. The disciplinary authority cannot determine the nature of conduct as indecorous or improper as per his own norms of behaviors and beliefs. Some guidelines are inherent in the Rules, and it is necessary that the same may be kept in mind. They are as follows: (1) The aforesaid rule occurs in the Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971. Therefore the behaviour which is to be branded as misconduct should have nexus with the duties to be performed by the Government servant. (2) Having regard to the office held by a Government servant he should be required to perform certain duties. If his conduct is such that it interferes or leads or interfere directly or indirectly with the honest discharges of his duty such conduct may be considered as unbecoming of a Government employee. (3) The behaviour which is being viewed as misconduct may be a matter of personal belief or non-belief of the employee concerned. If his conduct is such that it interferes or leads or interfere directly or indirectly with the honest discharges of his duty such conduct may be considered as unbecoming of a Government employee. (3) The behaviour which is being viewed as misconduct may be a matter of personal belief or non-belief of the employee concerned. It may be such to the displeasure of the disciplinary authority concerned, but if the behaviour has no nexus with the duty to be performed by the Government employee, the same cannot be branded as misconduct under the rules. (4) While considering a particular conduct as unbecoming of a Government servant one must bear in mind the status of Government employee as distinct from other employee and from other citizens. A Government servant must have taken oath under the Constitution or the might have been administered oath of secrecy, fidelity and sincerity while discharging his duty. A Government servant is bound by his oath; if his conduct is contrary to his oath, it may be considered indecorous or unbefitting to a Government servant. (5) Is the behavior or conduct of the Government servant concerned, runs counter to the aims and objects of the Constitution or is it against the spirit and object of any provision of law which he, as Government servant, is supposed to uphold and implement as a part of his duty ? (6) In a given case even though a particular behaviour may be a matter of personal life of the employee concerned it may have direct or indirect repercussions on the duty to be performed by the employee as a Government servant. To illustrate, normally it would never to objected to if a Government servant, in leisure hours, visits the business premises of his relatives. But if a District Civil Supplies Officer every day visits and sits for couple of hours at the business premises of his relatives where the essential commodities are being stored and traded, this may be considered objectionable. Other traders may think that he might be passing on some important information in advance, or that he might act with partiality and with bias in the case of this particular trader who happens to be his relative. Something which is quite normal and innocuous for others may not be permissible in his case. Other traders may think that he might be passing on some important information in advance, or that he might act with partiality and with bias in the case of this particular trader who happens to be his relative. Something which is quite normal and innocuous for others may not be permissible in his case. In such case, the employee may have to justify his conduct which in absence of good and sufficient explanation may be considered as 'misconduct'. Such instance cannot be enumerated. Each case has to be judged on the basis of its facts and circumstances. Therefore, while branding a particular behaviour as misconduct, the first question which is required to be posed is, has this conduct any nexus with the duty to be performed by the Government servant ? If so, is it merely a matter of personal belief regarding morals or immoral of the officer concerned ? Even so, has it any direct or indirect bearing on the duties to be performed by the employee concerned ? Answers to all these questions would determine whether particular behaviour is misconduct or not. 14. If these factors are not taken into consideration and any conduct which the disciplinary authority or the superior officer considers to be improper or indecorous for a Government employee is treated as misconduct, then the behaviour pattern, even in the personal life of Government employees, would be determined-rather dictated-as per the wishes and whims of the superior Government officers. This would create a society of sycophants. In such society top brass in service would behave as feudal lords and the employees in lower ranks, will have to mould their behaviour pattern so as to please their superior 'lords' (officers). In that case lower ranks in service will not be that of individual citizens having their own separate identity but they will become serfs or slaves. This can never be the intention of the Rules. If this interpretation is placed on the term 'unbecoming of a Government servant' it would simply mean 'behavior which causes displeasure to the superior's. Such absurd meaning cannot be ascribed to this phrase. If it is interpreted in that fashion, the provisions of the Rules would become arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution. Therefore, the only interpretation which can be placed on the phrase 'unbecoming of a Government servant' would be as indicated hereinabove. 15. If it is interpreted in that fashion, the provisions of the Rules would become arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution. Therefore, the only interpretation which can be placed on the phrase 'unbecoming of a Government servant' would be as indicated hereinabove. 15. In the light of the aforesaid interpretation of the phrase 'unbecoming of a Government servant' what is stated in the report of the Inquiry Officer may be examined. It is evident from the record that the girl was staying in the premises and it was known to the wife of the petitioner. The girl wanted to marry with the petitioner and, therefore, she had left her parental house after informing her mother and brother. The girl was major. Everyone concerned knew that the girl had come to the house of the petitioner voluntarily and the petitioner had not exercised any undue influence over her. It is not the finding in the inquiry report nor was there any such charge that the petitioner exercised undue influence over the girl. From the record of the case it becomes clear that the girl had stayed at the house of the petitioner and was doing household work. The petitioner's wife was pregnant and she had gone to her parents' house. During this period the girl was doing the household work. This is clear from the deposition of Haziraben, wife of the petitioner, who has been examined as a witness in the departmental inquiry held by the department. It was under these circumstances that the girl had stayed with the petitioner in Police line quarter. 16. Even if the aforesaid finding is accepted in its entirety, it can never be said that the petitioner has committed any misconduct 'unbecoming of a Government servant'. There is no finding that aforesaid conduct of the petitioner had any nexus with the duty to be performed by him or that his conduct interfered or even tended to interfere with the honest discharge of his duties. Thus, the disciplinary authority has completely misdirected himself while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct 'unbecoming of a Government servant'.” 44. Thus, the disciplinary authority has completely misdirected himself while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct 'unbecoming of a Government servant'.” 44. In view of the aforesaid interpretation of term misconduct in the facts of the present case vis-a-vis the charge approved as proved as summarized earlier, it is evident that the manner in which the inquiry Officer has ignored the relevant documentary evidence as well as testimonies of relevant witnesses, also violation of principles of natural justice. With the nature of evidence on record, it only raises suspicion as regards the conduct of the Judicial Officer, which cannot take the place of misconduct. With the nature of evidence with regard to the aforesaid charges being framed and proved vis-a-vis. the reasons assigned, indisputably the delinquent is neither found involved in corrupt practises or extraneous grounds have been proved against the delinquent. Looking at the charges approved as proved against the delinquent, at the most can be treated as delinquent having conducted himself in a negligent manner which cannot be treated as keen to misconduct. In our opinion, the order of termination imposed is highly disproportionate which is otherwise the maximum punishment imposed and which requires re-consideration. We are conscious of the fact that once the order of termination is effected on a judicial officer, he would be deprived of his services in future in any establishment. With such evidence as discussed earlier, whether it would be appropriate to pass an order of maximum punishment of termination. 45. This brings us to the disproportionately of punishment as raised by the petitioner as against the nature of charge framed and proved against the petitioner. The Supreme Court while examining the fundamental question of order of termination of Judicial Officer inspired by extraneous consideration in the case of Sadhna Chaudhary (supra), while upholding the decision of guilty of charge framed against the Judicial Officer, the Court observed that it cannot be denied that judges are sometimes subjected to unfair integrity criticism and mere suspicion cannot constitute misconduct. Any probability of ‘misconduct’ has to be supported with oral or documentary material which draws significance in absence of any material being brought on record to link the judicial officer in corrupt practices or illegal gratification. The Court further held that in such circumstances, the Courts are expected to take a relief oriented approach. Any probability of ‘misconduct’ has to be supported with oral or documentary material which draws significance in absence of any material being brought on record to link the judicial officer in corrupt practices or illegal gratification. The Court further held that in such circumstances, the Courts are expected to take a relief oriented approach. In other words, the Courts are expected to have fine balance preserving the judicial integrity and preserving judicial independence. CONCLUSION : 46. For the reasons stated above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.08.2016 terminating the services of the petitioner passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside with further directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the same post, prior to his termination with consequential benefit viz. to extend the salary and all service benefits to the petitioner. Having held the petitioner guilty of the charges approved as proved, we direct respondent no.1 to take appropriate decision on the imposition of punishment other than major punishment of termination, against the delinquent in accordance with the rules. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.