Lack of integrity: Madras high court upholds dismissal of judge
DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J STALIN
Published Sep 7, 2019, 2:39 am IST
Judicial officer is required to maintain absolute integrity and honesty in discharge of his functions.
Madras high court
Chennai: Pointing out that a judicial officer is required to maintain absolute integrity and honesty in discharge of his functions without giving any room for any complaint, much less complaint touching his integrity and honesty, the Madras high court has upheld an order of the state government, imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service on a additional district judge, Dharmapuri, for the proved charge of lack of integrity and corrupt practice (by hurriedly granting bail to an accused despite stiff opposition from the prosecution).
A division bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah and C.Saravanan dismissed a petition filed by R.Anburaj, an Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, challenging a GO dated March 1, 2017, which imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on him.
The bench said the charges levelled against the petitioner relates to his dishonest motive and lack of integrity in granting bail to an accused on June 24, 2013, in spite of stiff opposition by the additional public prosecutor. The crux of the charges leveled against the petitioner was that when he was in-charge of the court of Principal District Judge in the place of regular Principal Judge between June 21, 2013 and June 24, 2013, on June 21, on the basis of a representation made by an advocate to take up a petition filed on behalf of an accused Dr.Ganesan, he had directed the bench clerk to alter the date of hearing of the petition from June 25 to June 24, so as to enable him to take up the petition, purportedly to show undue favaouritism to the accused therein. Further, the taking up of the bail petition by the petitioner was opposed by the APP to the effect that a similar bail petition has been filed and it was pending before judicial magistrate, Pennagaram, while so a parallel petition need not be entertained. The APP also further opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the investigation in the case was likely to be transferred to CBCID. Despite such objections the petitioner had taken up the petition, called for the records from the judicial magistrate, Pennagaram, and found that the petition was dismissed in the morning and granted interim bail to the accused therein on the same day namely June 24, the bench added.
The bench said, “At every stage, the procedures required to be adhered to in a departmental proceeding has been followed by the respondents (state government, the registrar general and the registrar (vigilance) over which we cannot interfere. To be precise, there is no procedural violation in conducting enquiry against the petitioner and therefore, interference of this court is not warranted”.
The bench said when the charges leveled and proved against the petitioner goes to the root of the honesty and questionable integrity in discharge of his duties, “We are not in a position to appreciate the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is unwarranted and excessive”.
DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J STALIN
Published Sep 7, 2019, 2:39 am IST
Judicial officer is required to maintain absolute integrity and honesty in discharge of his functions.
Madras high court
Chennai: Pointing out that a judicial officer is required to maintain absolute integrity and honesty in discharge of his functions without giving any room for any complaint, much less complaint touching his integrity and honesty, the Madras high court has upheld an order of the state government, imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service on a additional district judge, Dharmapuri, for the proved charge of lack of integrity and corrupt practice (by hurriedly granting bail to an accused despite stiff opposition from the prosecution).
A division bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah and C.Saravanan dismissed a petition filed by R.Anburaj, an Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, challenging a GO dated March 1, 2017, which imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on him.
The bench said the charges levelled against the petitioner relates to his dishonest motive and lack of integrity in granting bail to an accused on June 24, 2013, in spite of stiff opposition by the additional public prosecutor. The crux of the charges leveled against the petitioner was that when he was in-charge of the court of Principal District Judge in the place of regular Principal Judge between June 21, 2013 and June 24, 2013, on June 21, on the basis of a representation made by an advocate to take up a petition filed on behalf of an accused Dr.Ganesan, he had directed the bench clerk to alter the date of hearing of the petition from June 25 to June 24, so as to enable him to take up the petition, purportedly to show undue favaouritism to the accused therein. Further, the taking up of the bail petition by the petitioner was opposed by the APP to the effect that a similar bail petition has been filed and it was pending before judicial magistrate, Pennagaram, while so a parallel petition need not be entertained. The APP also further opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the investigation in the case was likely to be transferred to CBCID. Despite such objections the petitioner had taken up the petition, called for the records from the judicial magistrate, Pennagaram, and found that the petition was dismissed in the morning and granted interim bail to the accused therein on the same day namely June 24, the bench added.
The bench said, “At every stage, the procedures required to be adhered to in a departmental proceeding has been followed by the respondents (state government, the registrar general and the registrar (vigilance) over which we cannot interfere. To be precise, there is no procedural violation in conducting enquiry against the petitioner and therefore, interference of this court is not warranted”.
The bench said when the charges leveled and proved against the petitioner goes to the root of the honesty and questionable integrity in discharge of his duties, “We are not in a position to appreciate the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is unwarranted and excessive”.
No comments:
Post a Comment