Back
2013 Supreme(Guj) 190
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
RAVI R. TRIPATHI AND A.G. URAIZEE, JJ.
L. M. Makwana – Petitioner
Versus
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT and Another - Respondents
Special Civil Application No.319 of 2010
Decided On: 10.05.2013
Mr. Radhesh Y. Vyas, Advocate for the Petitioner:Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Hemang M. Shah for Respondent No.1,
Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.2.
The main legal point established is the requirement of a preponderance of probabilities to prove charges in a domestic enquiry, and the duty of the Higher Judiciary to protect honest Judicial Officers from ill-conceived or motivated complaints.
Headnote:
Corruption - Judicial Officer - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 226 - Civil Procedure Code, Order 37, Order 38 Rule 5 - Corruption charges against Judicial Officer - Evidence based on complaint by Advocate - Lack of independent witnesses - Standard of proof in domestic enquiry - Protection of honest Judicial Officers by Higher Judiciary - Quashing of dismissal from service
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, challenged his dismissal from service based on corruption charges. The charges were related to an alleged demand for illegal gratification from an advocate during a civil suit hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the petitioner, based solely on the complaint by the advocate, lacked independent witnesses and did not meet the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry. The court emphasized the need for protection of honest Judicial Officers by the Higher Judiciary.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of evidence in corruption charges against the Judicial Officer, the standard of proof in a domestic enquiry, and the protection of honest Judicial Officers by the Higher Judiciary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the standard of proof in a domestic enquiry requires a preponderance of probabilities to prove the charges. It also highlighted the duty of the Higher Judiciary to protect honest Judicial Officers from ill-conceived or motivated complaints.
Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal of the petitioner from service, citing lack of sufficient evidence and the need for protection of honest Judicial Officers by the Higher Judiciary.
PER: MR. A. G. URAIZEE, J.:-
1. The petitioner a Judicial Officer in the subordinate judiciary of Gujarat is before us under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the final decision dated 4th/14th September 2009 of the High Court and the Notification dated 1st December 2009 of the State of Gujarat in Legal Department whereby he came to be dismissed from the service upon o recommendation of the High Court. The petitioner has made the following prayers in the petition :-
"(A) Quashing and setting aside the final decision dated 4/14.9.2009 of the High Court and the notification dt. 1.12.2009 of the State Government and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits including full back wages with 10% interest.
(8) During the pendency and final disposal, the Respondent No.2 may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service.
(C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper."
2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner, who was working as yd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Vadodara for the period from 10.6.1996 to 25.4.1997. One Advocate, Mr Vijay Majmudar made a complaint on 7th July 1997 against the petitioner. Pursuant to this complaint, a preliminary enquiry came to he conducted by the Special Officer (Vigilance) of the High Court and on completion of the enquiry, report dated yd May 2000 was submitted, which was placed before the High Court on 29th June 2000 and it was decided to hold regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner for imposing major penalty on the following charge :-
"When the delinquent was working as the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara from 10.6.1996 to 25.4.97, he was assigned Special Civil Suit No.757/95 preferred by M/s Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd. Of Vadodara on 21.11.1995 through its Advocate Mr. Vijay Majudar for recovering the sum of Rs.1,96,80,510/- with 24% interest thereon under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code against M/s. Sumitra Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd., Hyderahad. An application for attachment before judgment was moved under Order 38 Rule 5 of the C.P.C by the plaintiff company and the notice was issued to the defendant in response to which Mr. D.S.Murthi and Mr. Anand Majmudar appeared and filed a reply on 30.12.1995. The defendant company submitted an application for leave to defend and was heard where the written arguments of the plaintiff's side were submitted on 17.2.1997 and after hearing both the sides, the said application was fixed for order on 31.3.1997. It is alleged that on 28/29.3.1997 during the recess period i.e. 2.30 to 3.30 p.m., the delinquent called the plaintiff's Advocate Mr. Majmudar and demanded illegally 10% of the suit amount and on his showing inability to do so, he also asked Mr. Majmudar to employ one of his relatives in the plaintiff company."
3. The memorandum of imputation was served on the petitioner and vide his statement of defence dated 31 st July 2001, he denied the charges levelled against him and it was contended by the petitioner that Special Civil Suit in respect of which the complaint is made was never fixed on 27/28th March 1997 and that the Bench Clerk, Peon of the Court, who are the best available witnesses, were not examined during the preliminary enquiry and that except bare words of Mr Vijay Majmudar, there is no other independent witness and therefore it was ultimately urged by the petitioner that the charges may be dropped against him.
4. The Enquiry Officer came to be appointed and after recording the oral evidence the learned Enquiry Officer vide her report dated 3rd April 2002 came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. Pursuant to the report of the learned Enquiry Officer, final decision dated 4/l4th September 2009 it was recommended to the Government in Legal Department by the High Court to dismiss the petitioner from service and consequently, by Notification dated 1st Decem
