defendant in the suit for eviction. It is true that due to time-lag between the date of the complaint and the date of recording of evidence in 1992 by the Enquiry Officer, there are bound to be some discrepancies in evidence. But the disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial. Therefore, the scope of enquiry is entirely different from that of criminal trial in which the charge is required to be proved beyond doubt. But in the case of disciplinary enquiry, the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of “proof beyond doubt” has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. The test laid down by various judgments of this Court is to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent has committed misconduct and whether a reasonable man, in the circumstances, would be justified in reaching that conclusion. The question, therefore, is whether on the basis of the evidence on record, the charge of misconduct of demanding an illegal gratification for rendering a judgment favourable to a party has been proved. In that behalf, since the evidence by Kundanben, the aggrieved defendant against whom a decree for eviction was passed by the respondent alone is on record, perhaps it would be difficult to reach the safe conclusion that the charge has been proved. But there is a contemporaneous conduct on her part, who complained immediately to her advocate, who in turn complained to Assistant Government Pleader and the Assistant Government Pleader in turn complained to the District Government Pleader, who in turn informed the District Judge. The fact that the District Judge made adverse remarks on the basis of the complaint was established and cannot be disputed. It is true that the High Court has directed the District Judge to substantiate the adverse remarks made by the District
