The Court made the observation while considering a challenge by a judicial officer to his compulsory retirement for rude and discourteous conduct towards police personnel who had stopped his vehicle at an election check-post.

While sustaining two charges relating to the incident, the Court held that compulsory retirement was “unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate” and directed his reinstatement without back wages or consequential benefits.

A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed:

“A Judicial Officer occupies a position of high public trust and is expected to maintain the highest standards of dignity, restraint and propriety, not only while discharging judicial functions on the Bench but also in his conduct outside the Court. The office of a Judicial Officer does not cease with Court hours. The standards of conduct expected of a member of the judicial service extend beyond the courtroom and govern his conduct at all times. A Judicial Officer is, in that sense, a Judicial Officer throughout and not merely during Court working hours.”

The petitioner joined the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service as a Junior Civil Judge and, after completing the first phase of institutional training, was posted as the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Gurazala in Guntur District.

On March 18, 2014, police personnel stopped his vehicle at the Pondugula Bridge check-post while enforcing the Model Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the petitioner reacted angrily, addressed them disrespectfully, threatened a constable and directed the officials to appear before his Court.

The officials were allegedly made to stand in a corner of the courtroom for more than two hours and threatened with proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Four additional charges arose from an earlier incident involving personnel of the Tummalacheruvu Toll Plaza and the petitioner's alleged absence from Court without informing his superior authorities.

The Inquiry Officer held the two charges concerning the police personnel proved but exonerated the petitioner of the remaining four charges. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the latter findings and, after considering the petitioner's objections, recommended compulsory retirement. The penalty was imposed on January 4, 2018.

The respondents maintained that the departmental inquiry had been conducted in accordance with the applicable service rules and that the petitioner's conduct amounted to grave misconduct under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The issues before the Court were whether the disciplinary authority's findings on Charges 3 to 6, concerning the petitioner's treatment of toll plaza personnel and alleged unauthorised absence from duty, could be sustained, and whether compulsory retirement was proportionate to the misconduct established under Charges 1 and 2, relating to his rude conduct towards police personnel and their treatment in Court.

The High Court found that neither the impugned proceedings nor the material placed before it disclosed any cogent reason for reversing the Inquiry Officer's findings on Charges 3 to 6. No independent or additional material supporting the disciplinary authority's conclusion was identified.

“In the absence of any additional material or cogent reasons warranting a different conclusion, the disciplinary authority could not have merely substituted its own opinion for that of the Inquiry Officer,” the Court held.

Accordingly, the findings that Charges 3 to 6 stood proved were set aside and the Inquiry Officer's findings exonerating the petitioner on those charges were restored.

The Court, however, found sufficient oral and documentary evidence to sustain Charges 1 and 2. The police personnel had stopped the vehicle while performing their official duties and had expressed regret after learning the petitioner's identity. The petitioner was therefore expected to cooperate with them instead of reacting rudely and discourteously.

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad and All India Judges Association v. Union of India, and reiterated that judicial officers must maintain the same standards of rectitude, propriety and restraint on and off the Bench.

The Court added that changing social circumstances could not justify any relaxation of these standards.

“There can never be any dilution in the standards of courtesy, civility, patience, restraint, tolerance, forgiveness, impartiality and dignified conduct expected of a Judicial Officer,” it observed.

Nevertheless, the Bench distinguished the existence of misconduct from the proportionality of the punishment imposed. The proved charges concerned the petitioner's attitude towards police personnel and did not involve corruption, lack of integrity, dishonesty, moral turpitude, personal gain or conduct affecting his judicial impartiality.

The Court also considered that the petitioner was a young officer serving at his first station, had completed only the first phase of training and remained on probation when the incident occurred. In these circumstances, compulsory retirement was held to be unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate.

The Court consequently set aside the compulsory retirement order and directed the petitioner's reinstatement. However, applying the principle of “no work, no pay”, it denied him back wages and consequential monetary or service benefits for the period he remained out of service. His seniority was directed to be fixed from the date of reinstatement, and he was required to complete the remaining portion of his training.

The writ petition was accordingly partly allowed.

Case Title: JM v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 12901 of 2018

Appearance: B. Shiva Kumar for the petitioner; M. Shalini, Government Pleader for Law Legislative Affairs, for respondent No.1; V. Umadevi, Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana, for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Click Here To Read/Download Order