VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 440
839
law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be
open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases
where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except when
that legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged)
by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. Sec. 5(6)
of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the
indicated manner. When a question involves the interpretation of a
statutory provision or rule in relation to the Constitution, proviso to
Sec. 5(6) will automatically apply and the matter will be referred by
Chairman to a Bench of two members one of which will be judicial
member and vires of statutory provision and rule will never arise for
adjudication before a single member Bench or a Bench which does
not consist of a judicial member.
(440)
(A) Misconduct — in judicial functions
(B) Evidence — standard of Proof
(C) Evidence — some evidence, enough
Charge of demand of illegal gratification by a civil
judge from a defendant in a civil suit for eviction,
held proved on the basis of proof of preponderance
of probability and some material on record.
High Court of judicature at Bombay vs. Udaysingh,
1997(4) SLR SC 690
The respondent was a Civil Judge at Nasik. An allegation
was made against him that on 21-10-89 he had sent a word through
a messenger to a defendant in a civil suit for eviction, demanding
Rs. 10,000 as illegal gratification to deliver judgment in her favour.
She complained to her advocate who in turn complained to the
Asst.Govt.Pleader who in turn complained to the District Govt.Pleader.
The District Govt.Pleader informed the District Judge and the District
Judge made adverse remarks against the respondent in his