NAVEEN ARORA Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Judicial Officer with the Delhi Higher Judiciary Service, pursuant to imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect in view of the Inquiry Report dtd. 28/6/2021 and the decision of the Full Court of the Delhi High Court [Henceforth referred to as 'High Court'] dtd. 26/10/2021 dismissing him from service and the subsequent Order dtd. 23/11/2021 issued by the Office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge (S-W), Dwarka, New Delhi, seeks their quashing and setting aside and thence reinstatement with complete exoneration, arrears along with other consequential benefits of continuity of service.

(2.) As per brief facts, the petitioner clearing the Delhi Judicial Service joined in 2003 and thereafter while serving as a Judicial Officer, in February 2016, after applying and getting the requisite permission for travelling abroad along with his family members comprising his own self, his wife and their minor child and his younger brother, his wife and their two minor children, proceeded thereto. Upon return in June 2016, he submitted documents to the High Court. Noticing few discrepancies qua the Hotel bookings abroad made by an unknown person, the High Court called for explanation from the petitioner, which led to exchange of letters inter-se them. Being unsatisfied, the High Court issued a Memorandum containing the 'Statement of Article of Charge' dtd. 15/5/2018, later modifying it on 13/11/2018, to the petitioner as under:

(3.) This led to the appointment of the learned Inquiry Officer [Hereinafter referred as 'Officer'] and the proceedings before it. Initially, both petitioner and High Court gave their respective list of witnesses comprising four names each before the Officer, however, the petitioner declined to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the High Court. Instead, the petitioner later filed an application midway, after the examination-in-chief of two witnesses (including that of his own) already stood recorded and the proceedings were fixed at the stage of cross-examination, for producing two additional witnesses. As names of the said two witnesses, found no mention in the Statement of Defence filed by the petitioner twice, and as he could not be permitted to improve his defence, only one name was allowed to be included in the list of witnesses as according to the petitioner, the said witness had made the payments for Hotel bookings abroad.