Judges Hold High Public Office Of Trust, Must Act With Higher Standard Of Integrity: J&K&L High Court Upholds Munsiff's Dismissal For Misconduct

The Full Court had made the recommendations of his removal after conducting a preliminary enquiry followed by a regular enquiry conducted by a sitting judge of the J&K&L High Court. At conclusion of the enquiry it had been established that in the month of January, 2011, when the petitioner was nominated as Duty Magistrate during winter vacations, he, exercising the powers of Sub-Registrar of the District, had registered five sale deeds of immovable property by facilitating the evasion of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 32 lakh.

In his plea before the High Court, the petitioner sought quashing of his dismissal, the enquiry report against him besides the show cause notice issued by the Court proposing penalty of his removal from service.

Countering one of the contentions of the petitioner that the findings of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer are without any evidence and, therefore, perverse, the court observed that in the given facts and circumstances, the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur is clearly attracted. The preponderance of probabilities clearly point to the involvement of the petitioner in the serious misconduct which resulted in evasion of huge stamp duty and conferring wrongful benefit on the vendees.

"This could not have been done by the petitioner without any ulterior consideration. Be that as it may, we do not find it a case of no evidence or perversity. The Full Court, which unanimously endorsed the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, has, thus, acted justly, fairly and in the best interest of justice. We may hasten to reiterate the proposition that the Judges, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion.

Having regard to the nature of duties, the judicial officer is supposed to perform, a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity is expected from a judicial officer. The Judges are not like other Government employees, but hold high public office of trust and, therefore, should have sterling quality of integrity and unimpeachable character. It is in this light, the conduct of a judicial officer is to be gauged."

Dealing with the second contention raised by the petitioner that the show cause notice was defective and was clear enough to show that the matter had been prejudged, the court recorded that it is true that the show cause notice proposing penalty of removal of the petitioner from service does indicate that the Full Court, after going through the preliminary enquiry report submitted by Registrar Vigilance, had resolved that the regular enquiry for inflicting the major penalty would be initiated against the petitioner, but that does not, by any stretch of reasoning, amounts to prejudging the issue.

It was the prima facie view of the Full Court that, having regard to the nature of allegations against the petitioner that had surfaced during preliminary enquiry, it was necessary to proceed against the petitioner in a regular enquiry for inflicting major penalty. It cannot, thus, be construed that the Full Court had made up its mind to necessarily impose the major penalty even if there was no evidence against the petitioner collected during the regular enquiry, the court observed.

Adjudicating upon the third contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice of proposed penalty to the petitioner could have been issued only by the Governor and that the High Court being only a disciplinary authority was not the competent authority to impose the major penalty upon the petitioner could not have issued it, the court observed, that control over District Judiciary vested in the High Court in terms of Article 235 of the Constitution of India is complete and absolute and provided only to ensure independence of judiciary and to achieve effective separation of powers.

The "control‟ vested in the High Court, inter alia, extends to the maintenance of discipline in judicial service which in turn would mean vesting all disciplinary powers in the High Court, the court noted. On the said issue the bench further observed that accepting the argument of petitioner would be tantamount to conceding the control of the High Court over the District Judiciary in favour of the Executive, which not only is violative of Article 235 of Constitution of India, but would also militate against the very idea of independence of judiciary and separation of powers which forms the core of the Constitution of India.

Delving deep into the fourth and last contention of the petitioner that the non-supply of enquiry proceedings including the report of enquiry prior to the competent authority arriving at the proposed conclusions with regard to imposition of major penalty had severely prejudiced him, the court observed that supply of copy of the enquiry report prior to the competent authority arriving at a provisional conclusion with regard to imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner was neither required at the relevant point of time, nor its non-supply has, in any way, caused any prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner was supplied the copy of enquiry report along with show cause notice of proposed penalty. He not only responded to the notice vis-à-vis the proposed penalty, but in his reply, also contested the enquiry report on merits, the bench recorded.

On the strength of preceding analysis, the court upheld the order of the removal of the judicial officer accordingly dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Javid Ahmad Naik v State of J&K and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 48 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment