Bombay HC Upholds Removal Of Judge Accused Of Bribery In POCSO Case, Says Punishment Must Uphold Court's Dignity & Instil Faith In Litigants
The Bombay High Court recently upheld the removal of a Judicial Officer accused of taking a bribe to acquit an accused under the POCSO Act observing that writ courts need not grant relief to a Judicial Officer whose conduct is likely to affect the image of the judiciary. A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by one Pradeep Hiraman...
The Bombay High Court recently upheld the removal of a Judicial Officer accused of taking a bribe to acquit an accused under the POCSO Act observing that writ courts need not grant relief to a Judicial Officer whose conduct is likely to affect the image of the judiciary.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by one Pradeep Hiraman Kale challenging his removal.
“It is a universally accepted norm that Judges and Judicial Officers must act with dignity and must not indulge in a conduct or behaviour which is likely to affect the image of judiciary or which unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. If the Members of the judiciary indulge in a behaviour which is blameworthy or which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, the Writ Courts are not expected to intervene and grant relief to such a Judicial Officer”, the court observed.
The court added –
“Considering the position in which the Petitioner was employed, the punishment has to be proportionate to maintain dignity and respect of the judiciary and instil confidence and faith of the litigants in the justice delivery system.”
Pradeep Hiraman Kale, a Judicial Officer appointed in 2009 by the State, was served with Articles of Charge on July 5, 2017, following complaints received against him. These charges included allegations related to the acceptance of a bribe through an intermediary, Harish Keer, in connection with the acquittal of an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). Despite denying association with Keer and asserting that the acquittal was solely based on merits, Kale faced a departmental inquiry.
After recording of witness statements and cross-examination, the Enquiry Officer concluded that while Keer accepted bribes, there was insufficient evidence to prove Kale's involvement. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and found Kale guilty, recommending his removal from service, pursuant to Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979. This recommendation was accepted by the State, leading to Kale's petition challenging the order.
Kale argued that the State failed to prove the charges against him and questioned the reliance on recorded conversations. On the other hand, the State contended that the judicial review of termination of judicial service is limited and must focus on procedural violations or illegality, rather than the decision itself.
The High Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, emphasizing the need for evidence of misconduct. The Court highlighted that it cannot act as an appellate authority to reassess the facts.
The court pointed out that judicial review in termination matters is limited to instances of violations of natural justice, flaws in decision-making procedure, or patent illegality, rather than challenging the decision itself. It highlighted that disciplinary proceedings, though quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal, do not adhere to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt but instead rely on the preponderance of probabilities.
“…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.”
Referring to relevant precedents, including the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, the court emphasized that interference with disciplinary decisions can occur if there are violations of natural justice or if the conclusions are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The court noted that the petitioner was afforded opportunities to respond to charges, cross-examine witnesses, and challenge the findings. The court found no violation of principles of natural justice or infirmity in the decision-making process leading to the petitioner's removal.
The court underscored the importance of maintaining discipline and integrity within the judiciary, emphasizing the need for judges to uphold dignity and credibility. Considering the evidence on record, the court found the disciplinary proceedings and the decision to remove Kale were not perverse or without merit.
Thus, the court dismissed Kale's petition, affirming the decision to remove him from service.
Case no. – Writ Petition (L) No. 555 of 2020
Case title – Pradeep Hiraman Kale v. State of Maharashtra