HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
INDERJEET SINGH, RAVI CHIRANIA
Govind Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Judicature, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur at Jaipur through Registrar General – Respondent
ORDER :
Ravi Chirania, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by a Judicial Officer who has challenged his punishment order dated 05.08.2013, therefore, two observations as made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to judicial service, in two different judgments, being relevant for the case, are quoted as under:-
“Judicial Service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation”.
Another observation as made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is “a Judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
1.1. Keeping the above two observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as made in two
Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.
General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. R. Periyasamy
Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Registrar General, High Court of Patna Vs. Pandey Gajendra Prasad and Ors.
Judicial officers must maintain impeccable integrity; disciplinary actions must be based on established misconduct without procedural violations and adhere to high standards of justice.
Judicial officers are held to a strict standard of integrity, and misconduct, including attempts to influence judicial proceedings, justifies removal from service after a fair inquiry process.
The decision to compulsorily retire a judicial officer in public interest is based on the entire service records, especially adverse entries relating to integrity, and requires circumspection in judi....
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline and the requirement to prove prejudice in cases of non-serving of enquiry report, affirming the authority's discretion in disciplinary pr....
The findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
(1) Punishment – Power of judicial review conferred on Constitutional Court is not that of an appellate authority but is confined only to decision-making process – Interference with decision of depar....
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.