LexARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 355 ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR A v. .. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. (Civil Appeal No. 6966 OF 2004) JANUARY 13, 2011 B [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Service Law: ·r Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) c Rules, 1979 - rr.3 (iii), 5 (1) (vii) - Misconduct by Judicial Officer - Charged with travelling ticket less in a local train and misusing her official identity card - Punishment of compulsory retirement by disciplinary authority - Justification of - Held: Justified - Offence as alleged against the officer in memo of D charges, established on her own showing, thus, the Inquiry officer was justified in holding that charges levelled against her stood proved - Punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to her not disproportionate to offence alleged against her - Thus, order passed by the High Court upholding the E punishment of compulsory retirement by disciplinary authority does not call for interference. Judiciary - Judicial Officers - Code of Conduct - Held: . Judge's official and personal conduct must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. F It is alleged that the appellant - Judicial Officer travelled without ticket in a local train thrice; and that she misused her official identity card, made unnecessary scene on the Railway platform and gave threats to the G .+ Railway staff. The charges were framed against her and the disciplinary proceedings were held. The disciplinary authority held the appellant guilty of misconduct as per Rule 3 (iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Conduct 355 H - 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS '11011) 1 S.C.R. A Rules, 1979 and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of r. 5 (1) (vii) of the Rules. The B appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of ~ compulsory retirement. The High Court dismissed the petition. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is no reason to take a different view from the findings recorded by the High Court that she had indeed travelled on that day without any ticket and when C accosted, she simply passed the identity card to the hands of the ticket collector and walked away from the place. The Railway and the departmental authority in the inquiry took the same specific stand. If it was her case that she lost her identity card, it was required for her to D immediately lodge a complaint thereto with the concerned authority or with the police which she never did. The said identity card was in fact returned to her by the Railway three days later. There is no justifiable reason of the identity card being recovered at the '0' Railway E Station if she had not at all travelled by train on that day. [Para 16 and 17] [365-C-E] 1.2 So far as the incident of 13.5.1997 is concerned, the specific defence of the appellant is that she had purchased a first class ticket on 13.5.1997 but the same F was lost while boarding the train which was not accepted by the High Court holding the same to be highly improbable as she had voluntarily paid the charges after stating that Magistrates travelling without ticket could not be asked to pay the fine. The fact remains that on G 13.5.1997 also the appellant could not produce any valid ticket or pass when she was accosted and asked to produce her valid ticket/pass. The defence that she lost ticket while boarding the train could always be taken by anybody, but there must be some basic facts supporting H such statement which could not be produced by the ' ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR v. STATE OF 357 MAHARASHTRA , appellant in the instant case. [Para 18) [365-G-H; 366-A- A BJ ~ 1.3 Regarding the incident on 5.12.1997, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that on that particular day, she boarded a first class compartment at 'M' Station 8 although she tlid not have a valid ticket/pass in her possession. She paid a penalty which was given to her by one of her colleagues. Later on she took a stand that she had purchased a season ticket but the said ticket T was also found to have been purchased at 'D' Station. Furthermore, on 5.12.1997, when the appellant was c caught without ticket and when she was asked to produce the ticket, she could not do so nor was she prepared to pay the charges on the ground that she was a Magistrate and, therefore, has a right to travel without D ticket. It is establi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.