Bombay High Court: In a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner (Civil Judge) against an order passed by the Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department of Mumbai to remove him from judicial service, a Division Bench comprising of A.S. Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain*, JJ. upheld the order passed to dismiss the Civil Judge from his position due to his misconduct while stating that no reason was found by the Court to use its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background:
After receiving various complaints concerning the conduct of the Civil Judge, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Nandurbar filed a report with the office of the Secretary, Law, and Judiciary Department. In the report, it was stated that from appearance and body language, the Civil Judge appeared to be an abnormal person. Further, several complaints of his conduct and behavior were received by the District Judge at Shahada. The complaints related to his misbehavior, not attending the Court, thereby lowering the reputation of the judiciary.
In a secret report sent to the District Judge, it was stated that many staff members had complained that the Civil Judge would arrive in the Court under the influence of liquor. The Shahada Bar Association passed a Resolution in relation to the behavior of the Civil Judge and his Court functioning. This was forwarded to the Guardian Judge and requested that the Civil Judge be sent on leave.
In a discreet enquiry report in respect of the complaints, a first-hand narration of the Judge’s visit on 29-04-2017 at the Shahada Court wherein it was said that the Civil Judge unilaterally adjourned 70 matters and rose from the dais.
The Civil Judge was selected for a three-day refresher course on mediation at the academy where he arrived with his peon although the policy stated that no other member could be brought along. In a letter by the Joint Director of the Academy of Mediation Centre of Bombay High Court, it was stated that the Civil Judge was in an inebriated state and was not even able to walk properly. Further, he did not give proper reply because of which he was relieved immediately. It was also mentioned that he was under the influence of alcohol.
This incident was reported by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority wherein it was stated that on enquiry, the Civil Judge said that on his way his vehicle met with an accident and he got severely injured due to which he was on medication and did not consume liquor. Upon issuance of the Memorandum of Charges, there were 7 charges framed against the Civil Judge, all of which were denied by him. After a departmental enquiry, the impugned order was passed whereby the Civil Judge was informed of his removal from service under Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that three of the seven charges against the Civil Judge had been proved and thereafter punishment had been served. The Court stated that the Judges and Judicial Officers must act with dignity and must not indulge in any conduct or behavior which is likely to affect the image of the judiciary.
Further, the Court reiterated what was said in Nawal Singh v. State of U.P. (2003) 8 SCC 117 that the judicial service cannot be treated as a service in the sense of employment and that Judges while discharging their functions exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State and hence standards expected to be maintained are of the highest nature.
The Court stated that Charges No. 1 and 6 relate to following the dais timing and conduct of the Civil Judge in the Court. Various reports were found by the Court to align with the charges. Therefore, the Court stated its view that it cannot conclude that the findings of the Disciplinary Committee could be said to be perverse or without any material in support thereof.
Concerning Charge No.7, the Court stated that the evidence of the staff at the Academy clearly shows that the Civil Judge was under the influence of alcohol when he arrived at the Academy. The Court questioned how the Civil Judge managed to reach the Academy without any marks if the injuries suffered by the Civil Judge were so severe.
The Court noted that various enquiries and endorsements also proved that the Judge was regularly under the influence of liquor, and held that no reason was found to interfere with the impugned order.
Further, the Court stated that the punishment imposed was justified since the petitioner was occupying the post of a Judge which is why, his conduct and behavior had to be above par. It was held that the Court did not find any reason to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the Writ Petition.
[Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar General, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1152, Decided on 23-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Abhijeet A. Desai, Advocate Vijay Singh, Advocate Daksha Punghera, Advocate Ankit Jadhav
For Respondent — Advocate Rajesh S. Datar, Advocate A.R. Deolekar
Buy Constitution of India HERE
