Back
1998 Supreme(Del) 242
High Court Of Delhi
R.N.JINDAL - Appellant
Versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI - Respondent
Civil 2281 of 1989
Decided On : 03/27/1998
A.MARIAPUTHAM, ARUN JAITLEY
The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the inquiry officer and the High Court.
Headnote:
The petitioner, a Metropolitan Magistrate, was charged with tampering with judicial records, making false representations to the High Court, and other acts of misconduct. An inquiry officer found him guilty of the charges, and the High Court concurred with the findings and recommended his dismissal from service. The Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi accepted the recommendation and dismissed the petitioner from service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Metropolitan Magistrate, was charged with tampering with judicial records, making false representations to the High Court, and other acts of misconduct. An inquiry officer found him guilty of the charges, and the High Court concurred with the findings and recommended his dismissal from service. The Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi accepted the recommendation and dismissed the petitioner from service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the inquiry officer and the High Court. The Court also found that the petitioner had been given a fair opportunity to defend himself and that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings? 2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law? 3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the inquiry officer and the High Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was provided with copies of all documents relied upon by the Presenting Officer in support of his case. He was also allowed to inspect the records. In case necessity arose to summon files or documents for the purposes of cross examination of defence witnesses, there is no provision for supplying copies of such files or documents. 2. The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law. The petitioner was charged with misconduct and given an opportunity to defend himself. The inquiry officer conducted a fair and impartial inquiry and made findings of fact based on the evidence presented. The High Court concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer and recommended the petitioner's dismissal from service. The Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi accepted the recommendation and dismissed the petitioner from service. 3. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the inquiry officer and the High Court. The petitioner was charged with tampering with judicial records, making false representations to the High Court, and other acts of misconduct. The inquiry officer found him guilty of the charges, and the High Court concurred with the findings.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.
( 1 ) THE petitioner joined Delhi Judicial Service on 13. 3. 1973. He was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate in Shahdara Courts at Karkardooma when on 31. 1. 1987 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary departmental proceedings. He was served with charge sheet (Annexure A) on 4. 4. 1987. After considering the reply dated 25. 4. 1987, Shri Justice N. N. Goswami was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to enquire into five separate charges, inter alia, of tampering of judicial record and making of false representation to the High Court. Inquiry Officer on 16. 4. 1988 submitted his report holding charges 1,2,4 and 5 to have been proved and charge 3 as not proved. The Full Court considered the report of Shri Justice Goswami and concurred with his findings on all the charges and made recommendation to respondent No. 1 of petitioner s removal from service. The first respondent, namely, the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi, on going through the relevant material, including the report made by the Inquiry Officer, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed grave misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and, thus, found him guilty of conduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer, as per the findings of the Inquiry Officer on Articles of Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5. On 16. 12. 1988 major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect was imposed. It is this order of imposing penalty of dismissal from service (Annexure C), which is under challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) THE petitioner argued his case in person, who took us through the entire record, including charge-sheet, reply thereto, inquiry report, as also the Minutes of the Full Court and the orders of the Administrator. Complete record of the inquiry proceedings alongwith the original judicial record was also made available for our perusal, which was extensively referred to during the course of arguments. We have considered various submissions made at the Bar by the petitioner and by Mr. Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.
( 3 ) AS Charge No. 3 was held as not proved, therefore, no reference is being made with respect to the third charge. Barring that charge, the charge sheet served on 4. 4. 1997 on the petitioner was as follows :
"article I That Shri R. N. Jindal, whilst holding the post of Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Delhi addressed a reference, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the Registrar, Delhi High Court, against Shri B. S. Phartyal and others, in respect of an incident which occurred in the course of the proceedings held on 24th July, 1986 in the case entitled State against Rakesh Kumar fain under Sections 306/34 Indian Penal Code, F. I. R. No. 329 of 1985, Police Station, Gandhinagar, pending before him. The said reference was sent to Mr. P. K. Jain, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahdara, cither on 26th or 28th July 1986 for onward transmission. In order to show that the said reference had, in fact, been sent on 24th July 1986, the very day on which the said incident had occurred, the said Shri Jindal asked Shri Sukhpal Singh, U. D. C. , in the office of the District Courts at Shahdara, Delhi, to make an ante-dated entry in the despatch register, and at Shri Jindal s instance and behest, the said Shri Sukhpal Singh made an ante-dated Entry No. 218 dated 24th July, 1986 in the said despatch register. This entry was, in fact, made on 28th July, 1986. By the said acts the said Shri Jindal tampered with official records, or caused the same to be tampered with, and thereby committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has been guilty of conduct which is unbecoming of a judicial officer. Article II That on 5th of August, 1986, whilst dealing with the case entitled State v. Inderjit and Another (Case No. 81
