LexR.R. PAREKH versus HLGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 5 S.C.R. 906 R.R. PAREKH v. HlGH.COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6116-6117of2016) JULY 12, 2016 [T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) Service Law: Dismissal of service - Of judicial officer - Charges of misconduct. alleging that while trying two cases involving offence u/s. 135 of Customs Act, the manner and mode in which awarded sentence show that the decisions rendered were actuated by corrupt practice or oblique motive - Held: The delinquent had no convincing explanation for the alleged conduct - The charge of misconduct was thus established - However, punishment of 'dismissal' is not proportionate to the misconduct - Hence, it is substituted to 'compulsory retirement' - Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1971 - Rule 6. Judiciary - Judicial officer - Misdemeanour alleged - Disciplinary proceedings - Held: Cases involving misdemeanour of judicial officer have to be dealt with sensitivity and care - A· charge of misconduct against a judicial officer must be distinguished from a purely erroneous decision whether on ·/aw or on fact - The circumstances let into evidence to establish misconduct have to be sifted and evaluated with caution - Service Lam Constitution of India:. Art.235 - Disciplinary jurisdiction of High Courr- Scope of - Held: In exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiciion, conferred u/Art. 235, ~the High Court has an obligation to apply its 1~ind to a report submitted by the Disciplinary Committee as regards its· acceptance - The Court is not bound by the .decision of Disciplinary Committee. Art.226 - Jurisdiction under - Scope. of~ While determining the correctness of charge of misconduct - Held: The High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction u/Art.226 unless the findings are found to be perverse or it is a case of no evidence - The 906 R.R. PAREKH v. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR. sufficiency of evidence would notfall for re-appreciation or re- evaluation before the High Court. Evidence - Standard qf proof - Jn disciplinary inquiry - Held: A charge of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities - Disciplinary proceeding is not governed by the strict rules of evidence which govern a criminal trial. Disciplinary inquiries (Disciplinary Inquiry No. 15 of 2000 and 6 of2001) were initiated against the appellant-a judicial officer. Disciplinary Inquiry No. 15 of 2000 the appellant was on the charge of misconduct alleging that while trying two cases involving offence u/s. 135 of Customs Act, the appellant awarded sentence to the accused persons less than the minimum prescribed and that the decisions rendered were actuated by corrupt practice or oblique motive. In Inquiry No. 6 of 2001, the appellant was charged with dereliction of duty and with acting in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer. Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges could 11£.t be proved. Disciplinary Committee as regards the charges in Inquiry No. 15 was of the view that acts of the appellant were not totally bonafide, but the appellant should be exonerated. As regards the Inquiry No. 6, Disciplinary Committee upheld the Inquiry Report. Full Court of High Court, in chamber meeting resolved to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Committee. On remand Disciplinary Committee upheld the finding ofln,quiry Officer. Full Court then resolved to reconstitute the Disciplinary Committee and called upon to look into the matter again. The reconstituted Disciplinary Commi'ttee d~greed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and concluded that t,he appellant w.~,iliable to be dismissed from service. Report of I}i_~rjplinary Co.m_mittee was adopted by Full Court and 'consequently t!ie appellant was dismissed from service. The appellant filed writ p£tition .u/Art. 226 of the Constitution assailing the fi~dings of Uis_ciP.ti'ltar-Y Com_mit·tee and the order of dismissal. High Court held that•the C~l!,l,ige in Inquiry No. 6 of 2001 was not established. Ho~ever, it upheld the views of Disciplinary Committee and Full ~Q.uqt in Inquiry No. 15 of 2000 and upheld the order 'of dismissal of appellant. (-.,,.. "' 907 A B c D E F G H 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. A In appeal to this court it was interalia contended by the B c D E F G H appellant that once the Disciplinary Committee had decided in favour of the appell
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.