Bombay HC Upholds Termination Of Judicial Officer Accused Of Taking Bribe To Acquit POCSO Accused
The Bombay High Court has upheld the termination of a judicial officer accused of taking a bribe to acquit a POSCO accused.
In that context, the Bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that, "the parameters required for conducting disciplinary enquiry cannot be compared with the parameters required in criminal trial. The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct against the delinquent employee and such charge is to be proved on the basis of principles of preponderance of probability and not on strict rules of evidence."
Counsel Nitin Gaware Patil and Counsel Divyesh K Jain appeared for the petitioner, while Addl GP Milind More, along with others, appeared for the respondents.
Pradeep Hiraman Kale, a judicial officer appointed by the Maharashtra government since 2009, faced accusations of unethical conduct in July 2017. Allegations included accepting a bribe through a peon named Harish Keer to acquit a POCSO accused. Despite Kale denying any association with Keer and asserting the acquittal was based on merit, a departmental inquiry into the bribery allegation began after some charges were dropped on February 28, 2018.
The Enquiry Officer found insufficient evidence to implicate Kale directly but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed. A show-cause notice was issued on July 19, 2019, followed by Kale's denial of directing Keer's actions on August 5th, 2019. Eventually, Kale was found guilty of bribery charges, leading to his termination from government service on December 5, 2019.
Kale challenged this decision, arguing insufficient evidence and highlighting his commendable performance record. The State argued for limited judicial interference, asserting Kale failed to refute the allegations, and the burden was on him to do so.
The Court observed that, "the impugned order cannot be termed as perverse but is based on principles of preponderance of probability. We may also observe as stated above that considering the position in which the Petitioner was employed, the punishment has to be proportionate to maintain dignity and respect of the judiciary and instill confidence and faith of the litigants in the justice delivery system."
In light of the same, the Court held that it was not a fit case to exercise their discretion under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petition was dismissed.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Counsels Nitin Gaware Patil, Divyesh K Jain
Respondents: Addl GP Milind More, Senior Counsel Milind Sathe, Counsel Rahul Nerlekar
Cause Title: Pradeep Hiraman Kale vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
