SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMARE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. on 16 September 2019

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant was a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as aJudicial Magistrate on 01.03.1985. On 08.02.2001, he was put undersuspension and dismissed from service on 15.01.2004. The appellantchallenged his writ petition filed before the High Court. The same wasdismissed. Notice was issued in the special leave petition on 14.12.2015limited to the question of quantum of punishment. The only issue to bedecided is whether the punishment imposed upon him is justified or alenient view can be taken in the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention tothe relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Disciplineand Appeal) Rules, 1979, especially Rule ‘5’ thereof. We are concernedwith the portion dealing with major penalties, which reads as follows:

“Major Penalties -

(vii) compulsory retirement;

(viii) removal from Service which shall not be a disqualificationfor future employment under Government;

(ix) dismissal from Service which shall ordinarily be adisqualification for future employment under Government:

Provided that, in every case in which the charge of acceptancefrom any person of any gratification, other than legal remuneration,as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any officialact is established, the penalty mentioned in clause (viii) or (ix)shall be imposed; Provided further that, in any exceptional case and for specialreasons recorded in writing any other penalty may be imposed”

4. Emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellant is on thefirst proviso wherein it is stated that if an employee is held guilty A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Aof accepting gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive orreward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, the penalty mentionedin clause (viii) or (ix), i.e., removal from service or dismissal from serviceshall be imposed.

5. We are only concerned with the issue of penalty and we needBnot go into the entire gamut of facts. However, for the purpose of decidingthis appeal, it would be necessary to mention the core allegation madeagainst the appellant. The allegation was that he had a proximaterelationship with a lady lawyer and due to this relationship he passedcertain judicial orders in favour of her clients, including her mother andbrother when they were parties to certain proceedings. Those findingsCof fact have been upheld by all courts and even this Court has notinterfered with those findings and issued notice limited to the quantum ofpunishment.

6. The first and foremost quality required in a Judge isintegrity. The need of integrity in the judiciary is much higher than inDother institutions. The judiciary is an institution whose foundations arebased on honesty and integrity. It is, therefore, necessary that judicialofficers should possess the sterling quality of integrity. This Court inTarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu [(2005) 1 SCC 201] held as follows:- “Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline, apart from others.EIt is high time the judiciary took utmost care to see that the templeof justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to acatastrophe in the judicial-delivery system resulting in the failureof public confidence in the system. It must be remembered thatwoodpekers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside.”F7. The behavior of a Judge has to be of an exacting standard,both inside and outside the Court. This Court in Daya Shankar v. HighCourt of Allahabad and Others [(1987) 3 SCC 1] held thus:

“Judicial Officers cannot have two standards, one in the courtGand other outside the court. They must have only one standard ofrectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotelyunworthy of the office they occupy.”

8. Judges are also public servants. A Judge should alwaysremember that he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not onlyby his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of hisH

character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public andpersonal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others shouldbe incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges.

9. Judges must remember that they are not merely employees buthold high public office. In R. C. Chandel v. High Court of MadhyaPradesh [(2012) 8 SCC 58], this Court held that the standard of conductexpected of a Judge is much higher than that of an ordinary person. Thefollowing observations of this Court are relevant:

“37. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service andthe Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the publicoffice; their function is one of the essential functions of the State.In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges representthe State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust.A Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity andunimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the core withhigh moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he mustfeel secure that Judge before whom his matter has come, woulddeliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration.The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher thanan ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in thesociety have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the societycannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmnessrequired of a Judge. A Judge like Caesar’s wife, must be abovesuspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent uponthe Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and rule of lawto survive, judicial system and the judicial process have to be strongand every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity,impartially and intellectual honesty.”

10. There can be no manner of doubt that a judge must decide thecase only on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable tothe case. If a judge decides a case for any extraneous reasons then heis not performing his duty in accordance with law.

11. In our view the word ‘gratification’ does not only meanmonetary gratification. Gratification can be of various types. It can begratification of money, gratification of power, gratification of lust etc.,etc.In this case the officer decided the cases because of his proximaterelationship with a lady lawyer and not because the law required him todo so. This is also gratification of a different kind.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

114SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A12. The Judicial Officer concerned did not live upto theexpectations of integrity, behavior and probity expected of him. Hisconduct is as such that no leniency can be shown and he cannot bevisited with a lesser punishment.

13. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly,Bdismissed.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal dismissed.

C

D

E

F

G

H