Case title:
Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak vs State of Maharashtra and others.
Date of Order:
April 23, 2024;
Bench:
Hon’ble JITENDRA JAIN, J; A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Parties:
Appellant: Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak.
Respondents: State of Maharashtra and others.
Subject:
The case revolves around the importance that judiciary/judicial offices hold in delivering justice. In this case, the exercise of Power by the Civil Judge was against the principles of natural justice and eventually, they damaged the reputation of these offices. This appeal to drop the charges levied was quashed by the High Court as it found that there was no fault in the impugned order (from the lower court) as it was evident that the Civil judge indulged in malpractices (in the charges). Ultimately, this led to his removal from his post.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
Article 226: The High Court has the power to issue writs.
Article 235: Orders issued by the High Court that could terminate the services of a Judicial Officer.
OVERVIEW (Brief Facts)
In this case the main basis laid around the importance of a judicial system and the reputation it holds. This reputation should not be altered by anyone or any means.
- The case involves a Civil Judge (appointed on 19th March 2010).
- In this case, there were several complaints against the judges (the petitioner, Principal District and Sessions Judge) on the grounds of misconduct, and abnormal body language.
- These reports were submitted to the District Judge. The main grounds were misconduct, late appearance to the Court, not attending the Court, and appearing under the influence of liquor, which ultimately impacted the reputation of the judiciary.
- The above grievances report was put forward by the Principal District Judge and later the Guardian Judge. The report contained the complaints from the Shahada Bar Association along with two confidential reports of the District Judge.
- The Shahada Bar Association passed a resolution to send the petitioner on leave. A copy of the same was sent to the Guardian Judge.
- Later, the District Judge of Jalgaon filed an enquiry report discreetly(2 May 17) against the complaints of the petitioner report consisted of the District Judge's visit to the court premises of the petitioner.
- The District Judge was present in the court to observe the behaviour of the plaintiff on 29 April 2017. (from morning 10:15 a.m. till 6:10 p.m.).
- It was found that the petitioner was on the premises, fixed 70 cases on the criminal board and unilaterally adjourned the matters without consulting the present advocates and the litigants.
- It was further found he was loitering the campus and speaking to the litigants there.
- On enquiry it was found that on 29th April’17, it was a “drive day”, therefore, no evidence was recorded.
- Later, in Jan 2018, at UTTAN, the petitioner was selected for a three-day refresher course on mediation at Maharashtra Judicial Academy.
- He arrived at the destination with his peon (even when informed to travel alone).
- When he arrived there, he was in an inebriated state and was not even able to walk properly and give a proper reply, therefore. Hence, the Petitioner was relieved.
- The relief letter mentioned that he was under the influence of alcohol.
- The above-mentioned was reported by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (to Respondent No.1 accompanied by a report) signed by various authorities like the Joint Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director and Peon of the Academy.
- In the report, the petitioner claimed that his gipsy met with an accident which forced him to switch vehicles and reach the desired destinations. Also, he claimed he was under some medications and not liquor.
- When the related charges were filed and he was removed from the post of Civil Judge under Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 he moved to the High Court.
ISSUES RAISED
The core issues that were raised in this case were related to:
- Whether the acts committed by the Civil Judge are true?
- Were the Acts done reasonably regarding the image of the Court?
- Can Article 226 be exercised?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- While various charges and reports were filed by the association (memorandum of charges) The appellant contended that the filed charges were wrong and the charges were vague. (CHARGE 1 -RESPONSE)
- He stated on 29th April 2017 being “drive day”, the cases were adjourned. (CHARGE 6 -RESPONSE)
- In the incident of Uttan, he stated his gipsy met with an accident where he suffered neurological shock, contusions and abrasions on his thighs and lower legs, therefor was under constant pain due to which he was unable to walk. (CHARGE 7-RESPONSE)
- He further supported his arguments by submitting the required medical documents.
- Furthermore, on the impugned order he claimed that it was purely surmises and conjectures.
- It was claimed that non-following of dais timing never happened before 2018 and no show cause notice was issued seeking his explanation since his service from 2010.
- It was claimed that in Uttan no medical tests were done to justify or prove he was influenced by the alcohol.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The arguments made by the respondents as per contra as per (Respondent No.1) were that the plaintiff was a Civil Judge but his conduct was not at par with the expectations.
- It was submitted that the image of the judicial office has to protect the dignity of the majestic.
- It was claimed that the charges levied against the Petitioner there is no perversity crept in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition was requested to be dismissed.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- Based on the above facts and reports submitted, there was a Memorandum of Charges filed which had 7 charges against him filed in May 2018 and the Petitioner was directed to submit his report within 15 days.
- Based on the submissions of the plaintiff and the enquiry officer’s detailed report, it was found that out of the 7 charges, the arguments made by the plaintiff for his defence were true (In charges 1,6 & 7).
- Later a departmental enquiry show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner(on 7th November 2019 ) stating why the enquiry report may not be accepted.
- Eventually, the petitioner was informed about his removal from the post under Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.
- Eventually, on this backdrop the petitioner moved to the High Court.
- The High Court, while going through the Charges (1,6,7), individually pointed out:-
- Staying at your residence during Office Hours and approaching the dais late caused the advocates/litigants mental agony (Charge 1).
- The way the adjournment happened to other dates without the consultation of the advocates, with 70 plus matters being pending, where the petitioner was found chit-chatting with the litigants and never returning to attend the second session on the date of 29 April’17 indicated dereliction on his duty part. (Charge 6).
- The way the petitioner approached Uttan(in an intoxicated state), talking to the ladyship there in an unruly manner, and not following the instructions given by the associations are indicative of the fact that the petitioner was unworthy of becoming a judicial officer. It was pointed out that if the accused was in neurological distress, how did he manage to reach the destination?
- The court stated that Judicial review under Article 226 only happens when the decision is vitiated.
- After reviewing the lower court’s processes, the current court held there was no fault in the decision making and it was stated that the High Court would not interfere in the impugned order.
- It was emphasized that Judges and Judicial Officers must act with utmost dignity and should never indulge in an act that tarnishes the image of the judiciary.
- Hence based on Article 235 of the Constitution of India, on the above proof of breach of principles of natural justice or the applicable service rules, the services of the plaintiff were terminated.
- The Court collected/referred data from various other sources apart from the above-mentioned records and then gave its decision accordingly.
- It was again pressed on the fact that the evidence apart from the above also proved his liquor consumption habit. (As per the recorded statements of the Principal District Judge and the staff members of Shahada Court)
CONCLUSION
This case revolves around emphasising the fact that how important it is to maintain dignity and be responsible when holding a judicial office, as people look up to one with hope and fast justice. Whereas in this case there was a misuse of power which tarnished the image of the Court and judiciary as a whole. Irresponsibility at the cost of other’s valuable time and destroying the faith of others was not tolerated and after it was proven that the accused committed such incidents, the High Court under Article 235 removed the Judge from his post (terminating his services).
