R L JINDAL Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined Delhi Judicial Service on 13.3.1973.He was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate in Shahdara Courts at Karkardooma when on 31.1.1987 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary departmental proceedings. He was served with charge sheet (Annexure A) on 4.4.1987. After considering the reply dated 25.4.1987, Shri Justice N.N. Goswami was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to enquire into five separate charges, inter alia, of tampering of judicial record and making of false representation to the High Court. Inquiry Officer on 16.4.1988 submitted his report holding charges 1,2,4 & 5 to have been proved and charge 3 as not proved. The Full Court considered the report of Shri Justice Goswami and concurred with his findings on all the charges and made recommendation to respondent No. 1 of petitioner's removal from service. The first respondent, namely, the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi, on going through the relevant material, including the report made by the Inquiry Officer, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed grave misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and, thus, found him guilty of conduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer, as per the findings of the Inquiry Officer on Articles of Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5. On 16.12.1988 major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect was imposed. It is this order of imposing penalty of dismissal from service (Annexure C), which is under challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner argued his case in person, who took us through the entire record, including charge-sheet, reply thereto, inquiry report, as also the Minutes of the Full Court and the orders of the Administrator. Complete record of the inquiry proceedings alongwith the original judicial record was also made available for our perusal, which was extensively referred to during the course of arguments. We have considered various submissions made at the Bar by the petitioner and by Mr. Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

(3.) As Charge No. 3 was held as not proved, therefore, no reference is being made with respect to the third charge. Barring that charge, the charge sheet served on 4.4.1997 on the petitioner was as follows :