Back
1997(5) Supreme 123
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar -Appellant
versus
Shri Udaysingh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9506 of 1996
Decided on 9-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, D.M. Nargolkar, Advocate,
For the Respondents : R.S. Lambat, Advocate.
Held; 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 Judge on the basis of the statements to be recorded from the advocates and the complaint. In view of the admitted position that the respondent himself did admit that Gite had no axe to grind against him and the District Judge having acted upon that statement, it is difficult to accept the contention that the District Judge was biased against the respondent and that he fabricated false evidence against the respondent of the three advocates and the complainant. When that evidence was available before the disciplinary authority, namely, the High Court, it cannot be said that it is not a case of no evidence; nor could it be said that no reasonable person like the Committee of five Judges and thereafter the Government could reach the conclusion that the charge was proved. So, the conclusion reached by the High Court on reconsideration of the evidence that the charges prima facie were proved against the respondent and opportunity was given to him to explain why disciplinary action of dismissal from service could not be taken, is well justified. (Para 11)
Further held : The necessary conclusion is that the misconduct alleged against the respondent stands proved. The question then is: what would be the nature of punishment to be imposed in the circumstances? Since the respondent is a judicial officer and the maintenance of discipline in the judicial service is a paramount matter and since the acceptability of the judgment depends upon the credibility of the conduct, honesty, integrity and character of the officer and since the confidence of the litigant public gets affected or shaken by the lack of integrity and character of the judicial officer, we think that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is well justified. (Para 12)
(ii) Service Law-Disciplinary enquiry-Scope of-Standard of proof. (Para 11)
(iii) Judicial Service-Judicial Officer-Maintenance of discipline is a paramount matter-Lack of integrity and character of judicial officer-Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service-Justified when. (Para 12)
Judicial officers in the judicial service must uphold the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and character, as maintenance of discipline is paramount and lack thereof undermines public confidence in the judiciary, justifying dismissal from service.[1000021470011]
ORDER
This appeal by certificate arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, made on April 26, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 2210 of 1993.
2. While the respondent was working as Civil Judge, Jr. Division at Nasik, an allegation was made against him that on October 21, 1989, he had sent a word through a messenger to one Smt. Kundanben, defendant in a civil suit for eviction, demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification to deliver judgment in her favour. On receipt of the information, she appears to have complained to Mr. Sathe, her advocate; who in turn appears to have complained to one Mr. Parkash, Assistant Government Pleader; who in turn alleged to have complained to one Shri N.A. Gite, the District Government Pleader informed the District Judge of the demand of illegal gratification made by the respondent. On the bases thereof, the District Judge made adverse remarks against the respondent in his Confidential Reports for 1989-90. On coming to know of the same, the respondent made an appeal to the High Court to expunge the said remarks. The High Court, thereon, has directed the District Judge to substantiate the adverse remarks after recording the evidence of the aforesaid advocates. Subsequently, their statements came to be recorded. It is relevant to note, at this stage, that the respondent by then was transferred from Nasik by Notification dated April 26, 1990, but had not been relieved by the date when a letter was sent by Mr. Gite, District Government Pleader to the District Judge on May 4, 1990. On the basis of the statements recorded from the aforesaid three persons and also Smt. Kundanben, the complainant, the High Court initiated disciplinary enquiry against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer after giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent conducted enquiry and submitted his report. The charge framed against the respondent is as under :
"That on Sunday, the 22nd October, 1989, at about 10.00 a.m. you made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- through your messengers, from Smt. Kundan Kishor Somayya (Thakkar), resident of house No. 4518, Sardar Chowki, opposite Panchavati Police Chowki, Nasik, defendant in regular Civil Suit No. 581/81, for deciding the said suit in her favour and that you thereby indulged in corrupt practice amounting to gross misconduct."
3. The High Court after receipt of the enquiry report and consideration thereof, disagreed with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer and recorded its prima facie conclusions indicating as to how it differed from the findings reached its prima facie conclusions indicating as to how it differed from the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer and stated as under :
"Taking the cumulative view of these statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Nasik, we are of the view that the same are adequate enough to hold the delinquent s culpability in the matter of demand of illegal gratification for delivering a favourable judgment. The integrity is, therefore, thrown in doubt and penal action is required to be taken to maintain judicial discipline.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer who has not analysed the appreciated the evidence and material on record in right perspecitive."
4. Accordingly, opportunity was given to the delinquent officer, the respondent, to submit his explanation. The respondent submitted his explanation and on consideration thereof, the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court by its proceedings dated July 31, 1993 recommended for dismissal and the Government on consideration of the record and the recommendation of the High Court reached the following conclusion :
"And Whereas, the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, being the Disciplinary Authority, on considering the said report of the Enquiry Officer and evidence on record, decided not to agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer :
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
