YOGINATH DAMODHAR BAGDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 8th November, 1993 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner also seeks to quash and set aside the Charge-sheet dated 22nd May, 1992 and dissenting findings of the Disciplinary Committee of this Court. The petitioner also seeks reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service and other ancillary benefits such as seniority, permission, increments, etc.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amravati when he was served with an order of dismissal from service on 8th November, 1993. The said order was passed as a result of Departmental Inquiry held against the petitioner on the charges that while working as IInd Additional Sessions Judge at Wardha, the petitioner demanded Rs. 10,000/- from one Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh, accused in Session Trial No. 28 of 1982 and 37 of 1987 then pending before the petitioner, as a consideration for his acquittal and that the petitioner indulged in corrupt malpractice amounting to gross misconduct which were held by the Disciplinary Authority as proved against the petitioner.

(3.) BY its order dated 22nd April, 1992, the Disciplinary Authority had placed the petitioner under suspension which order was duly served upon the petitioner on 27th May, 1992. Alongwith the letter dated 22nd May, 1992 addressed by the then Registrar of this Court, copies of (i) Charge-sheet, (ii) Statement of Imputations, (iii) List of Witnesses and (iv) List of Documents as also copies of documents and statements of witnesses were forwarded to the petitioner with a direction to submit his Written Statement of Defence within two weeks from the date of service thereof upon the petitioner. The petitioner was working as IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wardha prior to his transfer as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amravati. The Disciplinary Authority had framed the following two charges against the petitioner :---