8 years on, Telangana High Court revokes judge’s forced retirement over misconduct

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings following a March 2014 incident involving the judge and police personnel, along with other allegations against him. The judicial officer alleged that some police officials had become hostile towards him after he issued notices and passed orders concerning alleged lapses in their legal duties.

How the disciplinary case began

The judge underwent the first phase of basic training at the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy from March 18 to September 17, 2013, before being posted as II Additional Junior Civil Judge.

Justices P Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda made it clear that setting aside the punishment did not amount to approving the judicial officer’s conduct.

On March 18, 2014, while he was travelling to court after leave, police personnel stopped his official vehicle at a check post during election-related checking. He complained about the incident to the principal district judge and later approached the high court. He was transferred to Visakhapatnam district on March 23 and joined there as a judicial magistrate first class on March 24 while still undergoing training.

The high court initiated disciplinary proceedings and framed six ‘Articles of Charge’ against him. The inquiry officer, in a report dated August 8, 2016, found two of the charges to be proved but the others were not.

The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings on the proved charges and sought the judge’s objections. He submitted them on August 4, 2017. Following deliberations on September 21, 2017, compulsory retirement was recommended. The state government issued orders on January 4, 2018, imposing the major penalty. The order was confirmed and communicated to him on January 5, 2018.

Court upholds 2 charges

The court found sufficient material to sustain two charges, concerning his conduct towards police at the check post, noting that the police personnel had intercepted the judge’s vehicle while discharging their official duties under enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and had expressed regret after he disclosed his identity as a judicial officer.

It said that the judge, as a judicial officer and responsible public servant, was expected to cooperate with the police instead of reacting in a manner found by the inquiry officer to be rude and discourteous. Such conduct, it said, fell short of the restraint and dignity expected from a member of the judicial service and constituted misconduct.

However, the court found no material justifying the disciplinary authority’s disagreement with the inquiry officer on the other charges, concerning alleged detention of toll staff and the judge’s alleged absence from court. It said no cogent reasons or independent material supported the departure and held the findings that those charges were proved “wholly unsustainable”. The court restored the inquiry officer’s finding that these charges were not proved.

Standards for judges

The high court made it clear that setting aside the punishment did not amount to approving the judicial officer’s conduct. It said, “The conduct of every Judicial Officer, both on and off the Bench, must always conform to the highest standards of dignity, restraint, impartiality and propriety.”

The court also noted that he was “a very young Judicial Officer serving at his first station after completion of only the first phase of institutional training and was still on probation.” It said judicial standards could not be diluted because society was changing and stressed the continuing importance of courtesy, civility, patience, restraint, tolerance, impartiality and dignified conduct.

But considering the absence of allegations involving corruption, lack of integrity, moral turpitude, personal gain or dishonest motive, it held that the proved misconduct did not warrant compulsory retirement under Rule 9(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. The court set aside the compulsory retirement order dated January 4, 2018, and the consequential proceedings dated January 5, 2018, directing his reinstatement.

However, he will not receive back wages or other consequential monetary or service benefits for the period he remained out of service. The court said, “making the petitioner staying away from the post and reinstating him to his original post itself can be treated as punishment for the charges proved.”

Applying the principle of “no work, no pay”, the court directed that his seniority be fixed from the date of reinstatement and that he undergo his remaining training.