Disciplinary Authority/Full Court Not Obligated To Give Reasons For Rejecting Representation: Allahabad HC Upholds Dismissal Of District Judge

While upholding dismissal of judicial officer on charges of demand of dowry and trying to influence his subordinate in a case instituted by his wife, the Allahabad High Court held that Disciplinary Authority being Full Court of the High Court is not obligated to supply reasons for rejecting the comments made by the delinquent judicial officer on the inquiry report.Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others, and the decision of a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court in Madhav Prasad v. Deputy Director, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that “the Disciplinary Authority / Full Court was not obligated to record its express reasons-to reject the representation made by the delinquent or to accept the Inquiry Report or to award particular penalty.”Upholding the disciplinary proceedings as fair and proper, the Court held that the petitioner had abused the opportunity of hearing granted to him and made a mockery of law by seeking numerous adjournments and delaying the proceedings by 3 years. Perusing the evidence on record, the Court held that the charges against the petitioner, senior judicial officer, were made out. “It needs no emphasis that a judicial office may remain distant and pure – unaffected and immune to personal gain and/or loss. Any transgression committed by a judicial officer to extract any benefit for the self or for the benefit of those to whom the judicial officer may be closely related, would always be dealt with most severely. Once the 'bad fish' is identified, it may not be retained in the 'tank'.”The Court further held that there is no room to allow a judicial officer to influence another judicial officer in exercise of his/her judicial functions.“If there exists a temple of justice, judicial officers must act like its high priests who must not only conduct the rituals involving discharge of their duties on the dias but they must zealously guard the purity of the temple itself. A judicial officer who defiles his office, merits no mercy.”Factual BackgroundPetitioner was serving as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut when he was first issued a chargesheet on 08.08.2016 alleging he along with his brother and other family members had demanded dowry at the time of his brother's wedding. It was alleged that petitioner along with his Petitioner's brother, who was a Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Meerut then, had tried to influence the investigating officer and misuse their position in judiciary. Subsequently, a second chargesheet was also issued to the petitioner alleging that he had tried to influence the judge hearing the case which was filed by his wife and had made false allegations against the Magistrate adjudicating the case. Pursuant to both chargesheets, inquiries were carried out in Allahabad and in Lucknow by different Judges and inquiry reports were provided to the petitioner for his comments. Thereafter, cases were placed before the Full Court wherein it was resolved to remove the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The State Government approved the dismissal order. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the High Court. Relevant LawArticle 311 of the Constitution provides that any member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State cannot be dismissed from service by an authority subordinate to its appointing authority and without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing after informing him of any inquiry against him/her. Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 provides for actions to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority if he accepts or rejects the Inquiry Report. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 9 provides that if upon perusal of the inquiry report, Disciplinary Authority feels that punishment under Rule 3 is to be given and sub-Rule (2) (rejection of any charge in the inquiry report) has been invoked, it must give a copy of the inquiry report along with its findings to the delinquent to furnish a reply to the same, if any. Thereafter, considering the entire record, the Disciplinary Authority may award one or more punishments, as it deems fit. High Court VerdictIn Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, the Supreme Court had held that even though by 42nd Amendment, the opportunity of hearing at the stage of disciplinary proceedings was done away with, the same remains an essential requirement of principles of natural justice. The Apex Court held that despite amendment to Article 311, delinquent remains entitled to a copy of the Inquiry Report and an opportunity to reply to the same. Though in the case of the petitioner opportunity to reply to the inquiry report was granted, the Court observed that the requirement to give an opportunity to respond to the inquiry report has not been...

Disciplinary Authority/Full Court Not Obligated To Give Reasons For Rejecting Representation: Allahabad HC Upholds Dismissal Of District Judge

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Disciplinary Authority/Full Court Not Obligated To Give Reasons For Rejecting Representation: Allahabad HC Upholds Dismissal Of District Judge

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers