‘Mountain out of molehill’: Why Uttarakhand High Court set aside dismissal of judge accused of abusing minor help

The court highlighted that the inquiry suffered from procedural lapses and held that the woman judge was wrongly held guilty of misconduct of a ‘non-existent charge’.

‘Wrongly held guilty’

• We find that the petitioner has been wrongly held guilty of misconduct of a non-existent charge.
• The doctor examining the minor gets the examination done in the presence of witnesses and gets the witnesses to attest the medical certificate.
• The examination form neither records as an admission form, or an outpatient form.
• There is no signature of the doctor who examined, nor is there a case history recorded by the examining doctor, nor is the examining doctor or any other doctor holding the post, been examined, and even more surprising is that the original of the said medical certificate is not available.
• The lapses, more particularly, the omission to have the medical certificate spoken through a qualified doctor leaves us aghast.
• It is surprising to note that though the magistrate heading the Juvenile Justice Board was available in the judges’ colony itself, yet a senior judge of the rank of the additional district judge was assigned the duty to record the statement of the minor child.
• The omission to examine the best witnesses, i.e. the peons who were rendering duty in the house of the petitioner or examining the other neighbours would also cast a cloud on the probity of the inquiry.
• Startling that though the entire controversy surrounded a minor victim and the genesis for the inquiry being the act of employing a minor child as a maid servant, the same is not one of the charges that was framed against the delinquent officer.
• In the absence of any warrant for coercive action, the marshalling of such a large squad and surrounding the house with armed policemen, in our opinion, was an act of overreach.
• It is settled law that preliminary inquiry cannot be put against the delinquent, as the officer is not part of the process and is not given an opportunity.
• The inquiry report, though gigantic, in our considered opinion, is completely bereft of any substantive material or incriminating evidence.

Court’s directions

• The impugned orders passed by the competent authority imposing the penalty of removing the petitioner from service, and the impugned order passed by the government of Uttarakhand are set-aside.
• The inquiry report is also set-aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service from the date of dismissal/ removal from service.
• The petitioner shall be entitled all service benefits, including seniority and shall be assigned consequential seniority and placed above the persons who were below her in order of seniority and with all consequential benefits.
• The petitioner would be entitled to 50% of the all monetary benefit, including pay etc.

What was the case?

• A complaint was received in 2018 through an anonymous e-mail alleging that the judge had kept a minor girl as a domestic servant at her residence and subjected her to physical abuse.
• Acting on the complaint, the District Judge conducted a spot visit with a police team, following which the judge was suspended on misconduct charges and departmental proceedings were initiated.