NARESH GOVIND VAZE versus GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 04-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
_( 
i 
NARESH GOVIND V AZE 
A 
v. 
GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Judicial Officer-Disciplinary proceedings-On 
charges inter alia of using intemperate language in representations to 
High Court-Penalty of compulsory retirement-Held: Justified-The c 
language used by the delinquent officer, does. not behove a judicial 
officer-Order was not violative of Article 21 or the Rules or principles 
of Natural Justice-Appointment of Inquiry Officer was not faulty-
Provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable to departmental 
proceedings nor is the Inquiry Officer a Court-Civil Service D 
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules have been formulated under proviso to 
Article 309 and thus have the force of a statute-Maharashtra Civil 
Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979-rr. 5 (1) (vii) and 8-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21 and 309-Evidence Act, 
1872-Principles of Natural Justice. 
E 
Departmental Proceedings-Nature of-Held: It is not a judicial 
proceeding. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Applicabilityof-To Departmental Inquiry 
-1 
proceedings-Held: Not applicable. 
F 
Disciplinary committee of High Court, initiated departmental 
proceedings against the appellant, a judicial officer. The changes 
against him were that he was not discharging his duties; that in his 
representation to the High Court regarding his transfer, he had used 
G 
intemperate language and other charges. District Judge was 
·1 
appointed as the inquiry officer. He gave his report that the charges 
were proved. Disciplinary Committee of High Court, in view of the 
report, issued second show cause notice to the appellant. In 
863 
H 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A response to that, he used intemperate language. Penalty of 
compulsory retirement from service as prescribed under Rule 5 (1) 
(vii) of Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982, was 
imposed. Further2/3rd compulsory retirement pension as admissible 
under Rule 100 of Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982, 
B was given to him. Pursuant to recommendation of High Court, State 
Government passed the order dated 14.12.2005 accordingly. Writ 
Petition thereagainst was dismissed by High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Appellant was served with a memorandum of charges. 
All the requisite documents were served upon him. He had also been 
served with the list of witnesses. Before the inquiry officer, witnesses 
were examined. Appellant had prayed for issuance of summons by 
D the inquiry officer upon some Judges of the High Court. The same 
was refused by the inquiry officer. The appellant, when questioned, 
could not inform this Court as to for what purpose he intended to 
examine the High Court Judges. Most of the charges levelled 
against the appellant were in relation to use ofintemperate language 
E in his representations. He even in his representation to the second 
show cause notice had used such language which, does not behove 
a judicial officer. Whereas independence and objectivity on the part 
of a judicial officer is always welcome butthe same would not mean 
that a judicial officer is free to use abusive or intemperate language 
F against the High Court. He might have felt aggrieved while orders 
of transfer were passed against him, but the same would not mean 
that while making representations before the High Court he would 
use such language. It is expected that a judicial officer would use 
such language which behoves a judicial officer. 
G 
[Paras 15, 16 and 22) [869-C, D, E, F; 872-C] 
2. Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 
1979, were framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the 
Constitution of India. They have, thus, the force of a statute. 
Moreover, appellant did not question the validity of the said Rules 
H before the High Court. [Para 17] [869-F, G; 870-A] 
> 
-1 
-/. 
{ 
"' 
'"! 
NARESH GO VIND V AZE v. GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA 
865 
3. The plea that the District Judge could not have been A 
appointed as an inquiry officer by the High Court is again a contention 
without any substance. By appointing a District Judge as an inquiry 
officer, the High Court did not delegate its disciplinary power in his 
favour as contended by the appellant. The District Judge being 
superior in rank to the appellant could have been appointed as an B 
inquiry officer by the High Court. [Para 18J [870-A, BJ 
4. It cannot b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.