As per case facts, the appellant, a Civil Judge, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated after an accused person filed a complaint against him, alleging demand for bribe ... for acquittal. The appellant challenged this dismissal via a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court, which was subsequently dismissed, leading to the current appeal. The reasons for appeal included the argument of insufficient evidence for the bribe demand, erroneous conclusions by the Disciplinary Committee, violation of natural justice due to lack of an opportunity to be heard when the Committee disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's exonerating findings, and questions regarding the Committee's jurisdiction under Article 235. The question arose whether the Disciplinary Committee's decision to dismiss the appellant was valid, particularly concerning the constitutional requirement of a 'Full Court' decision under Article 235 and the absolute necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing when the Disciplinary Authority overturns the Inquiry Officer's findings that had exonerated the employee. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that a delinquent employee has a fundamental right to be heard not only during the initial inquiry but also crucially when the Disciplinary Authority proposes to differ from findings that exonerated the employee. The Court found that the Disciplinary Committee had already reached a final conclusion of guilt without granting this critical opportunity, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It also noted inconsistencies in the complainant's story and the failure of the trap. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside both the High Court's judgment and the dismissal order, directing the appellant's reinstatement with all consequential benefits.