VASANT NARAYAN DAMPLE Vs. HONOURABLE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner who was a District and Sessions Judge in the State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed by the high Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing him from service on the ground that the misconduct alleged against him was duly proved before the Disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer and therefore this punishment was meted out.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner while working as a district and Sessions Judge, Nagpur granted anticipatory bail to certain accused, some of them were advocates of that court, which according to the department was a misconduct and therefore a charge-sheet was issued to him. The incident as alleged by the department is that in the evening of 30/03/1994 certain lawyers approached the Petitioner and requested him to take up for urgent orders an application for anticipatory bail, as it pertains to certain advocates. Taking into consideration the fact that the advocates who mentioned the matter were seniors, the petitioner assented to the request and gave them a hearing at 10. 30 p. m. at his residence. The lawyers presented an application for bail and sought anticipatory bail. The circumstances leading to that prayer were that there was maid servant in the family of Dewani and on 28/03/1994 she was found dead in the porch of the house of Dewani. An offence to that effect was therefore registered by Jaripatka Police Station, Nagpur and the applicant in whose house the body was found apprehending his involvement in the crime and arrest, moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel appearing for the applicant, the petitioner granted ad-interim anticipatory bail and placed the matter for hearing in the court on 31/03/1994 at 11. 00 a. m. On 31st March, the matter was heard from 3. 00 p. m. to 5. 00 p. m. and closed for orders. 1 st April was a holiday day and therefore the matter was posted for orders on 2/04/1994. The petitioner dictated the order to his stenographer on 1-4-1994 and the matter was ready for pronouncement on 2/04/1994. By the order pronounced on that day, the application for anticipatory bail as filed by the applicant was rejected by the petitioner.