J&K&L High Court Upholds Removal Of Civil Judge Accused Of Taking Bribe To Provide Job, Says Credibility Rests On Character Of Judges

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while upholding the removal of a judicial officer accused of taking money on the promise of securing public employment, has held that the credibility of the judicial institution depends not only on the correctness of judicial decisions but also on the character, integrity and rectitude of those who hold judicial office.The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a former Civil Judge challenging the Government order removing him from service after a Full Court recommendation based on a disciplinary inquiry.A Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar observed: “The office of a Judicial Officer demands unimpeachable integrity, absolute honesty and conduct that inspires public confidence in the administration of justice. The credibility of the judicial institution rests not merely upon the correctness of judicial decisions but equally upon the character and rectitude of those who man it. Allegations of accepting money on the promise of securing public employment strike at the very root of judicial probity and erode public faith in the justice delivery system.”The Bench further held that once such misconduct is established in a duly conducted inquiry, the High Court, under Article 235 of the Constitution, is “not only empowered but duty-bound” to maintain the purity of judicial service by recommending appropriate disciplinary action.The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge and was first posted as Munsiff/Additional Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Doda. The disciplinary proceedings arose from a complaint alleging that, while posted at Doda, he induced three persons to pay ₹2.50 lakh each on the assurance that he would secure their appointment in the Judicial Department by influencing senior officers and members of the selection committee for Class IV posts.The complaint alleged that the promised appointments did not materialise and the money was not returned. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Registrar Vigilance, who recorded the statements of the complainants and also considered a compact disc said to contain a recorded conversation. The matter was then placed before the Full Court, which resolved to initiate regular disciplinary proceedings.The inquiry was entrusted to a Judge of the High Court. The Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte after finding that the petitioner had failed to participate despite service of notices, and eventually held that the charges proved. The Full Court accepted the findings and recommended removal from service. The recommendation was accepted by the Government.The petitioner challenged the order on grounds including non-service of charge-sheet and notices, violation of natural justice, improper ex parte inquiry, absence of evidence of demand or recovery, non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act in relation to the CD, and disproportionality of punishment.The Court rejected the petitioner's plea that he was unaware of the proceedings. It was found from the original record that the charge-sheet, notices during inquiry, and show-cause notices proposing major penalty had been served.The Court noted: “The record reveals that the notice was served through the Principal District Judge, Kulgam and was acknowledged by the petitioner on 18.09.2019. The notice specifically informed the petitioner that, in the event of his failure to appear, the inquiry would proceed ex parte. Despite such service, the petitioner remained absent on 17.10.2019, whereupon the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and recorded the evidence adduced by the Presenting Officer.”The Bench also recorded that one additional opportunity was given by issuance of a fresh show-cause notice, but no reply was submitted.The Court held that the Enquiry Officer had relied principally on the oral testimony of the complainants, who consistently stated that they had paid money on the assurance of securing appointments in the Judicial Department.The Court observed: “The complainants consistently reiterated, both before the Registrar Vigilance and the Enquiry Officer, the allegations set out in the complaint, namely, that the petitioner had induced each of them to pay ₹2.50 lakh on the assurance of securing appointments in the Judicial Department; that no such appointments materialised; and that, when they demanded refund of the money, the petitioner either refused to recognise them or threatened them. In the absence of any rebuttal or cross-examination by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer cannot be faulted for placing reliance upon their uncontroverted testimony.”The Court further noted that the writ petition did not contain any categorical plea that the allegations were false, fabricated or actuated by mala fides.The Bench held that a party who deliberately abstains from inquiry proceedings despite due notice cannot later invoke natural justice to assail the inquiry.The Court stated: “Repeated and adequate opportunities were afforded to him to submit his...

J&K&L High Court Upholds Removal Of Civil Judge Accused Of Taking Bribe To Provide Job, Says Credibility Rests On Character Of Judges

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

J&K&L High Court Upholds Removal Of Civil Judge Accused Of Taking Bribe To Provide Job, Says Credibility Rests On Character Of Judges

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers