LexHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR versus SHRI UDAYSINGH S/O. GANPATRAO NAIK NIMBALKAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR v. SHRI UDAYSINGH S/0. GANPATRAO NAIK NIMBALKAR AND ORS. APRIL 9, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] Seivice Law : A B c Dismissal-Judicial Officer--Complaint against for demanding illegal gratification-Adverse remarks by District Judge in Confidential RepOJt-Rep- resentation against-District Judge substantiating his remarks by statements of litigalll and Advocates---High Cowt orde1ing disciplinary proceedings against Civil Judge and ultimately the Officer dismissed from se1vice--Writ peti- tion-Division Bench set aside the order of dismissal holding that the District D Judge was biased against the Officer-Held, It cannot be said that the Dist1ict Judge was biased against the Officer-Evidence was available before the disciplilla1y Authority namely the High Cowt-1he misconduct alleged against the Officer stands proved-171e imposition of penalty of dismissal is well justified-Judicial Review. E B.C. Chatwvedi v. Union of India & 01~·., [1995] 6 SCC 749 and State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Subaramaniam, [1996] 7 SCC 509, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9506 of ~- F From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.96 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 2210 of 1993. Harish N. Salve and D.M. Nargolkar for the Appellant. P.S. Lambat for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : G This appeal by certificate arises from the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, made on April 26, H 803 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 3 S.C.R. A 1996 in Writ Petition No. 2210 of 1993. While the respondent was working as Civil Judge, Jr. Division at Nasik, an allegation was made against him that on October 21, 1989, he had sent a word through a messenger to one Smt. Kundanben, defendant in a civil suit for eviction, demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000 as illegal B gratification to deliver judgment in her favour. On receipt of the informa- tion, she appears to have complained to Mr. Sathe, her advocate; who in turn appears to have complained to one Mr. Parakh, Assistant Government Pleader; who in turn alleged to have complained to one Shri N.A. Gite, the District Government Pleader. The District Government Pleader informed C the District Judge of the demand of illegal gratification made by the respondent. On the bases thereof, the District Judge made adverse remarks against the respondent in his Confidential Reports for 1989-90. On coming to know of the same, the respondent made an appeal to the High Court to expunge the said remarks. The High Court, thereon, has directed the D District Judge to substantiate the adverse remarks after recording the evidence of the aforesaid advocates. Subsequently, their statements came to be recorded. It is relevant to note, at this stage, that the respondent by then was transferred from Nasik by notification dated April 26, 1990, but had not been relieved by the date when a letter was sent by Mr. Gite, District Government Pleader to the District Judge on E May 4, 1990. On the basis of the statements recorded from the aforesaid three persons and also Smt. Kundanben, the complainant, the High Court initiated disciplinary enquiry against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer after giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent conducted enquiry and submitted his report. The charge framed against the respon- F G dent is as under : "That on Sunday, the 22nd October, 1989, at about 10.00 a.m. you made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000 through your messengers, from Smt. Kundan Kishor Somayya (Thakkar), resi- dent of house No. 4518, Sardar Chowki, opposite Panchavati Police Chowki, Nasik, defendant in regular Civil Suit No. 581/81, for deciding the said suit in her favour and that you thereby indulged in corrupt practice amounting to gross misconduct." The High Court after receipt of the enquiry report and consideration H thereof, disagreed with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer and H.C. OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH REGISfRARv. UDAYSINGH 805 recorded its p1ima f acie conclusions indicating as to how it differed from A the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer and stated as under : "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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.