1997 (4) TMI 548 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of illegal gratification against a judicial officer.
2. Adverse remarks in Confidential Reports.
3. Disciplinary enquiry and findings.
4. Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings.
5. Appropriateness of the penalty imposed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of Illegal Gratification Against a Judicial Officer:
The respondent, a Civil Judge, Jr. Division at Nasik, was alleged to have demanded Rs. 10,000 as illegal gratification from Smt. Kundanben, a defendant in a civil suit for eviction, to deliver a favorable judgment. This allegation was reported to various officials, leading to adverse remarks in the respondent's Confidential Reports for 1989-90.

2. Adverse Remarks in Confidential Reports:
The District Judge, based on the complaint, made adverse remarks against the respondent. The High Court directed the District Judge to substantiate these remarks by recording evidence from the involved advocates and the complainant. The respondent appealed to expunge these remarks, but the High Court initiated a disciplinary enquiry based on the recorded statements.

3. Disciplinary Enquiry and Findings:
The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry, giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Despite the Enquiry Officer's findings, the High Court disagreed, stating, "Taking the cumulative view of these statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Nasik, we were of the view that the same are adequate enough to hold the delinquent's culpability in the matter of demand of illegal gratification for delivering a favorable judgment." The Disciplinary Committee recommended dismissal, which the Government accepted.

4. Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings:
The Division Bench of the High Court found the District Judge biased and concluded that no reasonable man would find the respondent guilty of demanding illegal gratification. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review is not an appeal but a review of the decision-making process. The Court held that the Tribunal or Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority.

5. Appropriateness of the Penalty Imposed:
The Supreme Court noted that disciplinary proceedings are not criminal trials and do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stated, "Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct." The evidence, including contemporaneous complaints and the lack of hostility from the District Government Pleader, supported the conclusion that the respondent's misconduct was proved. Given the importance of maintaining judicial discipline and integrity, the penalty of dismissal was deemed justified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the respondent from service. The Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining discipline and integrity within the judicial service, concluding that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate and warranted no interference.