D.S. JADHAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel on both sides. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is summarily dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner herein, is a former Judicial Officer. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Civil Judge (J. D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class in the State of Maharashtra as indicated in later part of this order.

(3.) IT is as universally accepted norm that Judges and Judicial Officers must act with dignity and must not indulge in a conduct or behaviour which is likely to affect the image of judiciary or which unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. If the Members of the judiciary indulge in a behaviour which is blameworthy or which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, the Writ Courts are not expected to intervene and grant relief to such a Judicial officer. Ordinarily, an order terminating services of a Judicial Officer by passing an order of dismissal from service or other were on recommendation of the High Court as contemplated under Article 235 of Constitution of India would not be justiciable except on proof of breach of a constitutional provision, principles of natural justice or the applicable service rules. It is for the petitioner to make out a clear case so as to warrant judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has failed to make out such a case in this petition. 4 -A. In this case, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, in his capacity as an Enquiry Officer held the following charge proved against the petitioner : The petitioner was found having consumed liquor on a public road i.e. Poona -Nasik Road in front of police outpost at Nashik Road on 26th August, 1989 at about 8.45 p.m. and further behaving in a disorderly manner i. e. shouting and abusing amounting to a misconduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. The finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on oral and documentary evidence led before him. It is stated in Para 9 of the report of the Enquiry Officer as under : The delinquent (i. e. the petitioner) neither admitted nor denied the charge, He also did not put up any defence. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were accepted by the High Court on Administrative side after giving of a further opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment and a recommendation was made by the High Court to the Governor of Maharashtra to dismiss the petitioner from service. The above referred recommendation was duly accepted by Respondent -No. 3. As a result thereof, the impugned order of dismissal of petitioner from service was passed by Respondent No. 3. The relevant facts are briefly summarised hereinafter.