'Judicial Officer Should Have Been More Careful': Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Dismissal Of Trial Judge For Misconduct

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain an appeal filed against an order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which refused to quash the termination of a judicial officer. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi. 

The petitioner, who was serving as Munsiff Pulwama in Kashmir Division, was removed from the judicial service by the Governor of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir. The order by the High Court had been passed by the Governor on the recommendations of the Full Court that the said petitioner, in view of his proven misconduct, was not worthy of retention in the judicial service. The officer had been taken to task with regards to certain documents, which he had failed to sufficiently stamp.

At the outset, the counsel for petitioner submitted that the fault for the misconduct was with another official. He further stated that the enquiry which had been conducted also proved noting and that there had been a lot of uncertainty regarding the guilt of the petitioner. He said–

"The documents come processed from below, in the revenue department out here. In this case, there was the Nazir of the court who put up these documents which were supposed to be signed off. The enquiry which has been conducted by High Court judge does not prove anything. Enquiry says that the Nazir kept the documents within himself, we are not very certain."

The allegations were that the documents were in sufficiently stamped. The transactions in question had required prior permission of the administration, which were given, but since that permission was very old, the officer had to again ask for permission. As per the enquiry, the officer did not do his duty with caution and as required. Further, it stated that –

"It seems that the delinquent officer and the Nazir hatched a conspiracies to cause monetary loss to the state exchequer to undue benefit to the party whose documents were to be registered."

The complainant, as per the petitioner, was a militant who had issued him a threat because he had given an order in a case of the militant's father. The petitioner stated that he was a minority within a minority in Kashmir, as he was an Ahmadiyya and as such was being targeted by the complainant. 

However, the bench was not satisfied with the submissions. Justice Bela M Trivedi remarked–

"He was a judicial officer, he should have been more careful. The entire thing has been scrutinised by the enquiry officers, by the High Court judge. The matter has been considered by full court. There is a conscious decision taken by all the judges. It has been considered on the judicial side as well. So what more can we do?"

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.