Judicial Officer’s sponsored trip from a stranger is serious. ‘A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged’

Judicial Officer’s sponsored trip from a stranger is serious. ‘A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged’ – Delhi High Court.

A Division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the  following observation while refusing to reduce a major penalty of dismissal of service imposed on the judicial officer –

          “The post of a judicial officer 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 fact is that the petitioner while serving a Judicial Officer, in February 2016 applied for travelling abroad and so after getting permission for travelling with his family members. Upon return, he submitted documents to the High Court  to which the Court noticed some discrepancies qua the hotel booking done by an unknown person. The High Court called for explanation.

This led to the appointment of learned Inquiry Officer and on 28 June 2021 passed the Inquiry Report to which the Full Court of the High Court took decision to dismiss the petitioner from service. On 23.11.2021, order was issued by the Office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi.

It was contended by the petitioner that there was ‘confirmation bias’ agaist the petitioner since though the earlier unamended Article of Charge noted that though the Hotel Bookings abroad were made by a friend/client of the younger brother of the petitioner and paid for by a stranger, however, the said name of the friend/client was removed in the amended Article of Charges as if to mean that the payment was directly made by a stranger instead.

          It was also contended that there was no malafide on the part of petitioner as he did not withhold information about the said payments being made by a ‘stranger’ and further that the petitioner had also informed that he owed monies to the friend/client of his younger brother on account of the Hotel bookings abroad.

It was contended that the petitioner had offered money in lieu  of the said 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 the officer’s old collegemate.

The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the case of S.R. Tiwari vs. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 602 to contend that considering the past served records of the petitioner the punishment imposed was not commensurate to the gravity of charge of which the petitioner was found guilty.

And also the case of Sadhna Chaudhary vs. State of UP and Ors (2020) 11 SCC 760 to contend that mere suspicion cannot act as proof.

On the other hand the learned counsel for High Court mainly contended that the petitioner never disclosed the name of the ‘stranger’ in any of his letter. As per the own admission of the petitioner, the payment for the Hotel bookings abroad were made by a stranger who at best was connected with a friend of his younger brother. Thus accordingly the leaned counsel contended,  the said web is sufficient for the petitioner to be held guilty.

The counsel relied on the case of Ram Kshan Vs Government of NCT & Ors(2022) DHC, Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors (2009) and The State Bank of Bihar & Ors vs Phulpari Kumari (2020)

In the instant case, the petitioner prayed for reinstatement along with other consequential benefits and also sought a judicial review of all the impugned Orders.

On perusal of the records coupled with arguments, the Hon’ble Court found that the petitioner  neither challenged the appointment/constitution of the Officer nor questioned the manner of the proceedings conducted by the Officer nor raised any doubts about the decision making process followed by the Inquiry Officer.

Therefore, the Inquiry Officer has followed the enshrined principles of natural justice at all stages and has noted and  considered all materials/documents including the deposition of all the witness – the High Court inferred.

“17. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was found lacking in giving the material response to the repeated queries put by the High Court since the very inception. There are too many negatives which, unfortunately, do not add up to make a positive. Firstly, the petitioner, admittedly, asked for bookings abroad for a „guest house‟ and instead the bookings were done in „four/ five-star hotels‟. Strangely, despite him being aware of the same before the trip abroad, admittedly, it was never questioned by the petitioner. Secondly, although it was the case of petitioner that his younger brother had arranged for the Hotel bookings abroad through his friend/ client but in the letter dated 02.08.2016 given by the petitioner to High Court in lieu of the procedure of proving details to High Court regarding the expenditure of the trip abroad, admittedly, the petitioner did not disclose the name of the „stranger‟ or the details of exact amount owed to him, albeit only filed an annexure which contained his name and the amount. Thirdly, 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. Fourthly, despite the petitioner being well aware before departure for the abroad trip that a rank outsider, who was a complete stranger, had made payments for the Hotel bookings of the petitioner and his family members, strangely he kept sitting on the fence and did nothing. Fifthly, the friend/ client of the younger brother of petitioner actually happened to be a client of an old collegemate of the petitioner himself, who was running a law firm, dealing with the cases of the friend/ client and with whom both the wife of petitioner and the younger brother of petitioner were working, or we would say, loosely associated with (as the position is not clear despite our repeated queries). Interestingly, the wife of the petitioner was not in active litigation till a few years back as she was working in different companies/ firms and had joined only after delivering a child and similarly the younger brother of the petitioner was only enrolled as an Advocate after a few months of his return with the petitioner from abroad in June 2016. Sixthly, although the petitioner had all throughout maintained that he was unable to make the payment to the friend/ client of his younger brother as he refused to accept the same, who very well knew the consequences thereof and also the „stranger‟ as he was unaware of his whereabouts or his banking details, he has eventually, as we are told during the course of arguments, paid the sum after passing of the impugned orders” – the judgment reads.

Needless to say, and without going into the merits of the dispute any further, which this Court is not to go into (as it later unfurls), the moot facts before us reveal the acceptance of payment was indeed from a „stranger‟, and the same is, without fail, unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, especially whence he is officiating as such – High Court.

The Court also said that there was an acceptance from a „stranger‟ as  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.

Rejecting a plea for seeking judicial review of the impunged orders ,the Court said that a  Court under Article 226 of  The Constitution of India does not sit as a Court of appeal or to reappreciate or to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Officer as long as they do not shock the conscience of the Court and certainly not just because it can reach a different conclusion from that of the Officer merely because it is a plausible view.

Moreover, a Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India is not siting as a fact-finding enquiry – the Court observed.

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. There is no fault therein. – the Court said.

On the facts above, the High Court of Delhi viewed that the present petition does not call for any kind of interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India as the scope of interference itself in a petition challenging/ questioning/ raising doubt over the order(s) passed by the Officer and the other impugned order(s) is extremely limited and is only permissible in rare cases which show/ call for any rectification as mentioned hereinbefore. According to us, the facts being irreconcilable, no such case for interference is made out in the present petition. There is, thus, no need to deal with all the contentions raised by the learned Senior counsel for petitioner.

“.............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 Bench held.

Case: Naveen Arora vs. High Court of Delhi And Anr. {W.P (C) 7391 /2022}.

 Click for Judgment