Judicial Officer Must Act With Dignity: Bombay HC Upholds Removal Of Judge Accused Of Coming To Court Under Influence Of Liquor
The Bombay High Court has upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Authority which removed a Civil Judge based on the evidence of misconduct on several occasions such as coming to court under the influence of liquor, adjourning matters unilaterally, bringing family members to the academy etc.
A petition was filed by the Civil Judge assailing the order passed by the Law and Judiciary Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, ordering the removal of the Petitioner from judicial service, and further sought directions for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.
The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain observed “It is a universally accepted norm that Judges and Judicial Officers must act with dignity and must not indulge in a conduct or behaviour which is likely to affect the image of judiciary or which unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. If the Members of the judiciary indulge in a behaviour which is blameworthy or which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, the Writ Courts are not expected to intervene and grant relief to such a Judicial Officer. Ordinarily, an order terminating services of a Judicial Officer by passing an order of dismissal from service or other on the recommendation of the High Court as contemplated under Article 235 of Constitution of India would be liable to be interfered with broadly on proof of breach of a constitutional provision, principles of natural justice or the applicable service rules.”
Advocate Abhijeet A. Desai appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Rajesh S Datar and AGP AR Deolekar appeared for the Respondents.
The Court, inter alia, relied on the report of the District Judge, Jalgaon of his visit to the Court and on being there for the whole day also recorded the conduct of the Petitioner in not following the dais timing. During the said visit, it was found that the Petitioner entered into Court at 11:17 a.m. and around 70 matters were fixed on the criminal board. However, the Petitioner unilaterally adjourned the matters without consulting Advocates or litigants and at 12:20 p.m. rose from the Dais. After some time, the Petitioner sat in the room of the Clerk and was entertaining Advocates, litigants etc. in that room. He was found loitering around the Court premises and talking to the litigants. On enquiry during his visit, it was also surfaced that the Petitioner used to consume liquor.
Based on various evidence and judgment, the Court held, “The contention of the Petitioner that the punishment is disproportionate is also without any merits. The proportionality has to be examined on the facts of each case. The fact that the Petitioner was occupying the post of a Judge, his conduct and behaviour has to be above par is a very crucial aspect which has to be considered for imposing the punishment. The evidence on record clearly proves Charge Nos.1, 6 and 7 and the petitioner had lost the faith of not only the bar but also the Bench and the staff working with him on account of his conduct. Therefore, in our view, the punishment imposed is justified in the facts of the case. Discretion having been exercised without any arbitrariness by the Disciplinary Committee and after conducting enquiries and following principles of nature justice, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the decision in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar General, Bombay High Court and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:18633-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Abhijeet A. Desai, Vijay Singh, Daksha Punghera and Ankit Jadhav
Respondents: Advocate Rajesh S Datar and AGP AR Deolekar