Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, was appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division on 19 March 2010. During his tenure, complaints were received regarding his conduct, including misbehaviour, non-attendance of court, and arriving under the influence of liquor. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, filed a report on 17 February 2017, and the Shahada Bar Association passed a resolution on 25 March 2017. A discreet enquiry was conducted, and a charge-sheet was issued on 25 July 2018. An inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted a report on 30 September 2021, holding the charges proved. The disciplinary authority, the State Government, issued a show-cause notice proposing removal, and after considering the petitioner's response, passed the order of removal on 14 January 2022. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court examined the legality of the disciplinary proceedings and found that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself, including cross-examination of witnesses and submission of a written brief. The court held that the findings of the inquiry officer were based on evidence and that the punishment of removal was proportionate to the misconduct. The court also noted that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of probability, and the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence. The petition was dismissed, and the order of removal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Judicial Officer - Misconduct - Removal - The petitioner, a Civil Judge Junior Division, was removed from service based on complaints of misbehaviour, non-attendance of court, and arriving under influence of liquor. The court held that the disciplinary authority's findings were based on evidence and the punishment of removal was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. (Paras 1-19)
B) Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceedings - Opportunity of Hearing - The court found that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself, including cross-examination of witnesses and submission of written brief. The inquiry officer's report was furnished to him, and he was heard before the final order. (Paras 10-15)
C) Evidence - Standard of Proof - Disciplinary Proceedings - The court held that in disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the inquiry officer were based on oral and documentary evidence, and the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of removal of the petitioner from judicial service is sustainable in law and whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of removal dated 14 January 2022 is upheld. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Judicial discipline
- misconduct
- removal from service
- natural justice
- proportionality of punishment
- standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (04) 157
Writ Petition No. 15539 of 2022
A. S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain
Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai a/w. Mr. Vijay Singh, Ms. Daksha Punghera & Mr. Ankit Jadhav i/by. Desai Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh S. Datar for Respondent No.1-High Court. Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent No.2-State.
Registrar General, Bombay High Court, Bombay & State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of removal from judicial service.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 14 January 2022 removing the petitioner from judicial service and directions for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was removed from service based on disciplinary proceedings alleging misconduct, misbehaviour, non-attendance of court, and arriving under influence of liquor.
Previous Decisions
The disciplinary authority (State Government) passed the order of removal on 14 January 2022 after considering the inquiry report and the petitioner's response to the show-cause notice.
Issues
Whether the order of removal from judicial service is sustainable in law.
Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice.
Whether the punishment of removal is proportionate to the misconduct.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to violation of natural justice and that the findings were based on no evidence.
Respondents argued that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and that the findings were based on evidence, and the punishment was proportionate.
Ratio Decidendi
In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court. The punishment of removal for a judicial officer found guilty of misconduct, including habitual drinking and non-attendance of court, is proportionate and not shockingly disproportionate.
Judgment Excerpts
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to quash the order No. DAJ 1521/768/CR 159/Desk-3, Law and Judiciary Department, Govt. of Maharashtra dated 14th January 2022 passed by the Respondent No.2–Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mumbai ordering removal of the Petitioner from judicial service and further seeks directions for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.
The court held that the disciplinary authority's findings were based on evidence and the punishment of removal was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge Junior Division on 19 March 2010. Complaints were received in 2017. A discreet enquiry was conducted, and a charge-sheet was issued on 25 July 2018. An inquiry officer submitted a report on 30 September 2021 holding charges proved. A show-cause notice was issued, and after considering the petitioner's response, the State Government passed the order of removal on 14 January 2022. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date, and the court heard arguments on 18 April 2024 and pronounced judgment on 23 April 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
