Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC's Order Dismissing Judicial Officer For Accepting Favour Of 'Sponsored' Foreign Travel From 'Stranger'

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court that upheld a judicial officer's dismissal from service for allegedly accepting a "favour" from a "stranger". The allegation against the judicial officer was that a “stranger” had “sponsored” his family's foreign travel in 2016.

A division bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the appeal filed by the Judicial Officer, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court.

In March 2023, a division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court had refused to reduce a major penalty of dismissal of service imposed on the judicial officer. The High Court observed that the facts of the matter revealed that the acceptance of payment was indeed from a stranger and the same is, without fail, “unbecoming of a Judicial Officer” especially when he is officiating.

“The post of a Judicial Officer is a coveted one with responsibilities attached to it. A Judicial Officer is expected to be unceremonious and not take things in an easy manner. A Judicial Officer is expected to be more prudent. At the end of the day 'A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged',” the High Court had said.

The High Court had dismissed the plea moved by the judge, who joined the judicial service in 2003, against a Full Court decision and an order issued by Office of Principal District & Sessions Judge of Dwarka courts dated November 23, 2021. The petitioner had also sought reinstatement with complete exoneration, arrears along with other consequential benefits of continuity of service.

An inquiry was initiated against the judge after some discrepancies were found in the documents submitted by him qua the hotel bookings made by an unknown person for his and his family's foreign travel in 2016.

An Inquiry Report dated June 28, 2021, was passed and a decision was taken by High Court’s Full Court to dismiss him from service.

It was the case of the petitioner judge that there was “confirmation bias” against him. It was submitted that though an earlier unamended Article of Charge noted that the Hotel bookings abroad were made by a friend or client of his younger brother and paid for by a 'stranger', that name was removed in the amended Article of Charge as if to mean that the payment was directly made by the stranger.

It was the case of the petitioner judge that there was no malafide on his part as he did not withhold the information about the payments being made by a 'stranger' and that he also informed that he owed money to the "friend/client" of his younger brother on account of the Hotel bookings abroad. It was also contended that the petitioner had offered money in lieu of the Hotel bookings abroad before leaving for the trip abroad to the "friend/client" of his younger brother, "who in turn assured him that he would accept the money only upon return."

The person who "sponsored" the trip was allegedly a "friend/client" of the judicial officer's wife and brother, both of whom were associated with a law firm being run by the officer's "old collegemate".

Dismissing the petition, the High Court, at the outset, had noted that the petitioner-judge neither challenged the appointment or constitution of the Inquiry Officer nor questioned the manner of the inquiry proceedings conducted. It also noted that the judge did not raise any doubts about the decision -making process followed by the Inquiry Officer.

“As such, based on what the records reveal, this Court infers that the Officer has all throughout followed the enshrined principles of natural justice at all stages and has noted and considered all materials/ documents including the deposition of all the witnesses,” the High Court had noted.

The High Court had also noted that the judge, admittedly, asked for bookings abroad for a guest house and instead the bookings were done in four or five-star hotels.

“…though the petitioner filed Statement of Defence twice before the Officer, but on neither occasion did the name of the 'stranger' crop up. Not only that, the said name of the 'stranger‟ was also not included in the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner before the Officer initially, however, his name was included later only after the examination-in-chief of two witnesses (including that of the petitioner himself) had already stood recorded and it was at the cross-examination stage,” it had said in its March 2023 decision.

“That there was an acceptance from a 'stranger' is admitted and that it is not reasonably explained, is sufficient for the petitioner to be held guilty. Such acceptance can be in any form and need not always be quid pro quo and/or direct. Unfortunately, the present petition neither inspires confidence nor appeals to reason,” the High Court had said.

While rejecting the plea, the High Court had said that a court under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not sit as a court of appeal or to re-appreciate or interfere with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer as long as they do not shock the court’s conscience, and certainly not just because it can reach a different conclusion merely because it is a plausible view.

It was also observed by the High Court that a writ court under Article 226 is not sitting as a fact-finding enquiry.

“The present is not a case of no evidence or perverse findings or that the findings arrived at by the Officer shock the conscience of the Court or such where there have been any procedural irregularities. On the contrary, the conclusion arrived by the Officer is well-reasoned and well-supported and plausible in the eyes of the law,” the High Court had said.

The High Court had noted that there was hardly any scope for interference and dismissed the petition as not maintainable either in law or facts.

“…. in the opinion of this Court, considering the post of a Judicial Officer held by the petitioner, the charge of accepting money in the nature of a favour from a stranger' is in itself serious and thus the penalty imposed is commensurate to the charge. We are afraid, no case of leniency calling for reduction of penalty imposed is made out,” the High Court had observed.

Case Title: Naveen Arora V. High Court Of Delhi And Anr