Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Akil Kureshi, R.K.Abichandani
NIRMALA J.JHALA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
S.C.A.5759 of 1999
Decided On : 08/25/2004
Indian Penal Code - Section 409, 467 and 471 - Petitioner who was a Judicial Officer has by way of present petition challenged notification issued by Government of Gujarat by which petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired from service with effect from notification - Petitioner was working as Second Joint Civil Judge petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial magistrate and continued to work on said post till - For having committed certain misconduct pending departmental proceedings petitioner was placed suspension by order - Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry against petitioner pursuant to said charge-sheet - Inquiry Officer submitted his report in which it was concluded that charge against petitioner stands proved - Inquiry Officer came to following conclusion as a result of come to conclusion that demanded or agreed to accept illegal gratification through Advocate in her chamber on charge is answered accordingly with respect to charge leveled against petitioner Inquiry officer concluded that a person known as mama used to come and sit in chamber of however, there is no evidence on record that this person used to collect money from litigants - Exact findings of Inquiry officer in this regard were as follows see no reason to disbelieve evidence that one person known as mama used to come and sit in chamber has said in cross-examination that several persons are known as Mama in staff and he does not know person known as Mama personally - That may be so but remains that a person known as mama used to come and sit in chamber there is no evidence on the record that person used to collect money from litigants on behalf of litigants – Held, Find that there is substantial material on record to drive home the charge against petitioner findings arrived at by Inquiry Officer as accepted by High Court in its recommendations cannot be characterized as perverse or as no prudent person would ever arrive at - Certain minor discrepancies notwithstanding which are bound to creep in on account of some passage of time in recording different statements at different stages and on account of number of persons giving their statements during course of inquiry find that there is sufficient material on record to support findings arrived at during course of inquiry - None of discrepancies would shake foundation of finding have noted that Inquiry Officer has not believed when suggested that he could hear conversation between petitioner when he was standing outside chamber of petitioner on - Inquiry officer has also discarded possibility of petitioner having threatened -This however by itself would not be sufficient for us to hold that findings of Inquiry Officer and that of High Court in its recommendations were based on no evidence find that High Court in its recommendations has taken into account all relevant aspects of matter have extensively reproduced portions of said recommendations reasoning therein cannot be faulted - Petition dismissed (Paras 55 and 56)
( 1 ) THE petitioner who was a Judicial Officer has by way of the present petition challenged the notification dated 11-12-1998 issued by the Government of Gujarat, by which the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired from service with effect from the date of the notification.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to the present petition can be noted at the outset. The petitioner was working as Second Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Ahmedabad rural from 10-6-1991 to 18-10-1992, the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) and continued to work on the said post till 25-11-1993. For having committed certain misconduct, pending departmental proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 21-1-1994. On 6-8-1994, a charge-sheet came to be issued against the petitioner containing in all 12 charges against her. Shri M. C. Patel, the then Additional (1) 1977 GLR 738 (FB) (2) 1999 (7) SCC 739 (3) 2002 (7) SCC 142 (4) 1999 (2) SCC 10 (5) AIR 1972 SC 2535 (6) AIR 1997 SC 2286 (7) AIR 1997 SC 2631 (8) AIR 2000 SC 22 (9) 1972 (4) SCC 618 (10) AIR 1989 SC 1185 principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry against the petitioner, pursuant to the said charge-sheet dated 6th August, 1994.
( 3 ) UPON conclusion of the oral inquiry, the Inquiry Officer concluded that charges Nos. 3 to 12 against the petitioner are not findings with the High Court on its administrative side agreed to, and we may therefore, ignore the details of those charges for the purpose of present petition.
( 4 ) CHARGES Nos. 1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner read as follows :"that while you were working as 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (S. D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur for the period from 10-6-1991 to 19-10-1992, and Chief judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad for the period from 19-10-1992 to 25-11- 1993 : 1. That in C. B. I. Case No. 5 of 1991, you demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/-, and you agreed to accept the amount by the way of instalments of Rs. 5000/- each from the accused Mr. G. G. Jam, through his Advocate Mr. C. B. Gajjar, for showing favour to the accused. 2. One person who is known as mama amongst the litigants used to come with you from your residence and to return with you and to sit in your Chamber and to collect money from the litigants on your behalf, and thereby, you indulged in the corrupt practice,"during the course of the inquiry, several witnesses were examined before the inquiry Officer, Number of documents were also produced to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report in which it was concluded that the charge Art. 1 against the petitioner stands proved. The Inquiry Officer came to the following conclusion :"as a result of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that Miss jhala demanded or agreed to accept illegal gratification through Advocate shri C. B. Gajjar for doing favour to Shri Jani at her meeting with Shri gajjar in her chamber on 17-8-1993. The charge No. 1 is answered accordingly. "with respect to charge Art. No. 2 levelled against the petitioner, the Inquiry officer concluded that a person known as mama used to come and sit in the chamber of Miss Jhala, however, there is no evidence on record that this person used to collect money from the litigants. The exact findings of the Inquiry officer in this regard were as follows :"i see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Shri Rajnikant S. Shah that one person known as mama used to come and sit in the chamber of Miss Jhala. He has said in cross-examination that several persons are known as Mama in staff and he does not know the person known as Mama personally. That may be so, but the fact remains that a person known as mama used to come and sit in the chamber of Miss Jhala. However, there is no evidence on the record that the person used to collect money from the litigants on behalf of the litig
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
