‘No leniency’: Rajasthan High Court upholds penalty on judge for ‘trying to approach colleague’ in father’s cases

What was the case?

• The petitioner judge was appointed as a civil judge (junior division) in 1996.
• He came to be served with a chargesheet, dated January 4, 2010, under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, whereby he was charged with misconduct.
• Rule 17 pertains to the procedure for imposing minor penalties.
• It was alleged that the petitioner judge had approached a senior judge presiding over two cases in which his father was a litigant and a counsel for a defendant.
• The petitioner approached the high court against the punishment imposed on him of stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect.
• The senior counsel appearing for the petitioner judge argued that the aforementioned judge was an officer senior to the petitioner in the judicial services, and that he had never tried to approach him directly or indirectly.
• It was further submitted that the enquiry judge (in the misconduct matter), had committed a mistake in his enquiry report, and failed to consider the fact that on November 29, 2008, the petitioner was not in Jaipur, and that he was performing his duties as a judicial officer in Alwar.
• The counsel also pointed out that the enquiry judge had failed to consider the fact that the petitioner admittedly, was not known to the said judge, which the judge had also accepted.
• On the other hand, the senior counsel for the respondent (Rajasthan High Court) submitted that the petitioner was rightly issued the chargesheet, as he tried to ‘influence’ the judge by approaching him.

‘Lacks unimpeachable integrity’

• While deciding the plea, the high court made the following observations:
• In the matter of departmental proceedings, the constitutional courts – while exercising the power of judicial review – cannot act as an appellate authority while examining the orders of the disciplinary authority.
• However, a distinction can be made where the court notes that the prescribed procedure under the law was not followed, the enquiry report was contrary to the documents and facts, or the enquiry officer was biased.
• The justification given by the petitioner on receiving the chargesheet has also been examined, which is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and goes on to show that the petitioner, through his explanation along with three affidavits as submitted, tried to question the said judge who passed the order.
• The petitioner, through his explanation, failed to answer clearly that the allegations levelled against him are baseless.
• Senior counsel for the petitioner during the entire arguments failed to point out any non-compliance or violation of any procedure in conducting the departmental proceedings and passing of the punishment order.
• The person performing judicial services stands on a different pedestal as it acts on behalf of the state in the discharge of its sovereign function.
• Unimpeachable integrity, honesty, is seriously lacking and missing in the case of the petitioner, as the judge had noted his conduct – which he failed to counter – in the order.