Devinder Gupta - (1.)The petitioner joined Delhi Judicial Service on 13.3.1973.He was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate in Shahdara Courts at Karkardooma when on 31.1.1987 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary departmental proceedings. He was served with charge sheet (Annexure A) on 4.4.1987. After considering the reply dated 25.4.1987, Shri Justice N.N. Goswami was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to enquire into five separate charges, inter alia, of tampering of judicial record and making of false representation to the High Court. Inquiry Officer on 16.4.1988 submitted his report holding charges 1,2,4 & 5 to have been proved and charge 3 as not proved. The Full Court considered the report of Shri Justice Goswami and concurred with his findings on all the charges and made recommendation to respondent No. 1 of petitioner's removal from service. The first respondent, namely, the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi, on going through the relevant material, including the report made by the Inquiry Officer, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed grave misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and, thus, found him guilty of conduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer, as per the findings of the Inquiry Officer on Articles of Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5. On 16.12.1988 major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect was imposed. It is this order of imposing penalty of dismissal from service (Annexure C), which is under challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)The petitioner argued his case in person, who took us through the entire record, including charge-sheet, reply thereto, inquiry report, as also the Minutes of the Full Court and the orders of the Administrator. Complete record of the inquiry proceedings alongwith the original judicial record was also made available for our perusal, which was extensively referred to during the course of arguments. We have considered various submissions made at the Bar by the petitioner and by Mr. Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.
(3.)As Charge No. 3 was held as not proved, therefore, no reference is being made with respect to the third charge. Barring that charge, the charge sheet served on 4.4.1997 on the petitioner was as follows :
"Article I That Shri R.N. Jindal, whilst holding the post of Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Delhi addressed a reference, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the Registrar, Delhi High Court, against Shri B.S. Phartyal and others, in respect of an incident which occurred in the course of the proceedings held on 24th July, 1986 in the case entitled State against Rakesh Kumar fain under Sections 306/34 Indian Penal Code, F.I.R. No. 329 of 1985, Police Station, Gandhinagar, pending before him. The said reference was sent to Mr. P.K. Jain, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahdara, cither on 26th or 28th July 1986 for onward transmission. In order to show that the said reference had, in fact, been sent on 24th July 1986, the very day on which the said incident had occurred, the said Shri Jindal asked Shri Sukhpal Singh, U.D.C., in the office of the District Courts at Shahdara, Delhi, to make an ante-dated entry in the despatch register, and at Shri Jindal's instance and behest, the said Shri Sukhpal Singh made an ante-dated Entry No. 218 dated 24th July, 1986 in the said despatch register. This entry was, in fact, made on 28th July, 1986. By the said acts the said Shri Jindal tampered with official records, or caused the same to be tampered with, and thereby committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has been guilty of conduct which is unbecoming of a judicial officer. Article II That on 5th of August, 1986, whilst dealing with the case entitled State v. Inderjit and Another (Case No. 814/2 of 1984) the said Shri R.N. Jindal commenced proceedings under Section 345, Criminal Procedure Code, against Shri D.R. Lakhani, Advocate, Counsel for one of the accused, and wrote out the following order in his own hand : 'Accused Vijay Kumar produced in custody by Shakkarpur Police. He has applied for fresh bail. Bail bond is accepted. The other accused Inderjit is absent. Issue NBWs against him. At this stage the defence Counsel Sh. D.R. Lakhani appeared alongwith accused Inderjit. Accused be taken in custody. Mr. Lakhani submitted that the accused was sitting on his seat and he is present. How could the Court take him into custody. Mr. Lakhani thumped my table thrice and stated that I had no jurisdiction to send his client in custody when he was present in the Court. Mr. Lakhani by thumping the table has caused interference in the judicial proceedings. Let notice be given to him u/Secs. 345, Criminal Procedure Code' Subsequently, the said order was removed from the record of the case by the said Shri Jindal, and, instead, another typewritten order dated 5th August, 1986 was substituted by him in order to attribute to Mr. D.R. Lakhani conduct which was more serious by way of constituting Contempt of Court. By the said acts the said Shri Jindal tampered with judicial records, and thereby committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has been guilty of conduct which is unbecoming of a judicial officer."

"Article IV That as a result of an amicable settlement relating to the proceedings which had been commenced against Shri D.R. Lakhani, Advocate, under Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in the course of the proceedings in the case entitled State v. Inderjit and Another, Case No. 814/2 of 1984), an application was made by Shri A.S. Khatri, President, Shahdara Bar Association and by Shri D.R. Lakhani, Secretary, Shahdara Bar Association, on 12th August 1986, before Shri R.N. Jindal, saying: 'Since the matter has been amicably settled the proceedings may kindly be dropped'. On the said application, Shri R.N. Jindal wrote the following order in his own hand : In view of the above, proceedings against Shri D.R. Lakhani, Advocate u/ Sec. 345, Criminal Procedure Code are dropped.' Subsequently, the said Shri R.N. Jindal added at the end of the said order, in his own hand, the words 'by a separate order', and placed on record a typewritten order dated 12th August, 1986 convicting Shri D.R. Lakhani under Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code and awarding him the punishment of admonition. By the said acts, the said Shri R.N. Jindal tampered with judicial records and committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has been guilty of conduct which is unbecoming of a judicial officer. Article V Further, Shri R.N. Jindal sent a letter bearing the date 12th August, 1986 to the Registrar, High Court of Delhi, in which he falsely stated that Shri D.R. Lakhani had tendered an unqualified apology and has been 'admonished of the offence under Sec. 345, Criminal Procedure Code by a separate order' contrary to the truth that the matter had been amicably settled and the proceedings against Shri D.R. Lakhani had been dropped. By the said acts, Shri R.N. Jindal deliberately made false representations to the High Court of Delhi in order to forestall.any allegation that may be made against him by Shri Lakhani and other Lawyers, and thereby committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has been guilty of conduct which is unbecoming of a judicial officer."