Judges Must Not Tarnish Image Of Judiciary: Bombay High Court Upholds Removal Of Civil Judge Who Arrived At Judicial Academy In Inebriated State

The Bombay High Court recently upheld state government's order removing civil judge Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak from judicial service due to unilateral adjournment of cases, failure to follow court timings and arriving under the influence of alcohol.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar & Justice Jitendra Jain observed –

“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 dismissed Pathak's writ petition challenging an order dated January 14, issued by the Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mumbai, which directed Pathak's removal from service.

The case stemmed from several complaints regarding Pathak's conduct during his tenure. Principal District and Sessions Judges, as well as the Shahada Bar Association, raised concerns about Pathak's behavior.

Reports from the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Nandurbar and the District Judge of Jalgaon highlighted Pathak's irregularities, including not adhering to court timings, unilaterally adjourning cases, and socializing during court hours.

One significant incident occurred on January 6, 2018 at the Maharashtra Judicial Academy in Uttan, where Pathak, selected for a mediation refresher course, arrived in an inebriated state. He was unable to walk properly, and brought along a peon, violating academy policy of not brining any family member or any other member. Reports from academy officials corroborated this incident.

Following these events, charges were framed against Pathak, and an inquiry ensued. After an inquiry process that spanned from February 2019 to April 2019, the Enquiry Officer concluded that several charges against Pathak, including failure to follow court timings and attending the mediation course in an intoxicated state, were proven.

A departmental enquiry was initiated, and a show cause notice was issued against Pathak. Subsequently, he was dismissed under Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. Pathak challenged the order, alleging procedural irregularities and disproportionate punishment, and sought reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Pathak's challenge to the impugned order was based on procedural grounds, but the court found that due process had been followed. Pathak was provided with the memorandum of charges, given an opportunity to respond, and allowed to cross-examine witnesses during the inquiry process. The court concluded that the decision-making process followed by the disciplinary authorities was fair and in accordance with established principles.

The court emphasised that interference in disciplinary matters should be limited unless procedural irregularities or arbitrariness are evident in the decision-making process.

Regarding the specific charges against Pathak, the court did not find any mala fide in the reports against Pathak by district judges and bar associations.

“We, therefore, find no reason in interfering with the impugned order, moreso because the Petitioner is occupying the post which is looked upon with high respect and if the Disciplinary Committee has come to a conclusion of removal of service on the basis of material before them, it cannot be said to be perverse”, the court held.

The court cited various judgments emphasizing the duty of judicial officers to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and highlighting the need for exemplary conduct, given the public trust bestowed upon judges. The court underscored that the judiciary must maintain impeccable integrity, with judges held to the highest standards of behaviour.

The court rejected Pathak's contention that the punishment was disproportionate, considering his position and the gravity of the proven charges. The court held that Pathak's conduct, coupled with his position as a judge, warranted the imposed punishment.

Thus, the court dismissed Pathak's petition, affirming the removal order.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 15539 of 2022

Case Title – Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar General, Bombay High Court and Anr.

Click Here To Read/Download Order