SIYARAM ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, a member of the Bihar State Superior Judicial Service, to challenge the Government Notification dated 29th January 2008. By the impugned Notification the petitioner, then a District Judge, has been reduced in rank to the lowest cadre in Bihar State Superior Judicial Service. The petitioner was appointed as the Additional District and Sessions Judge in the year 1991. In course of service on 6th July 2001 he was promoted as District and Sessions Judge.

(2.) A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 13th March 2004 for certain acts of commission and omission amounting to dereliction in duty, lack of integrity and insubordination committed during the years 1999 to 2002. It was alleged that while acting as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan the petitioner purportedly delivered a judgment in Title Appeal No.67 of 1997 on 21st August 1999 but did not make it available for perusal until 23rd August 1999; that while functioning as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Purnea, he dismissed Title Appeal No. 22 of 1998 on extraneous consideration after receiving illegal gratification of Rs.25000/ -; that while functioning as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, he conducted Sessions Trial no.21 of 2000. In the process trial, he summoned the prosecution witnesses by issuing non -bailable warrants. For no valid reasons, he remanded the witnesses in judicial custody. The witnesses were incarcerated in jail where the accused was also housed. In spite of the complaint by the witnesses that in the jail they were harassed and threatened by the accused, under one pretext or the other, the witnesses were not released immediately. After the prosecution witness (the eye witness) gave his evidence in support of the prosecution, his further examination and cross -examination was prolonged until the said witness turned hostile. In the result, the accused was acquitted. It was alleged that during the Sessions Trial no.21 of 2000, though the judgment was pronounced on 9th February 2001, he signed on 23rd February 2001 and ante -dated his signature as of 9th February 2001. It was further alleged that while functioning as District and Sessions judge, Khagaria, in spite of the direction issued by the High Court he did not settle the pension case and terminal benefits of one Jitendra Prasad Mishra, who had retired as the Sheristedar of the District Judge, Khagaria.

(3.) THE learned advocate Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sinha has appeared for the petitioner. He has taken us through the records. He has submitted that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved. The argument is mainly centered around the appreciation of evidence. The challenge is also on the grounds that during the course of inquiry the enquiry officer had changed. The learned judge who made the report did not conduct the inquiry. The inquiry has thus been vitiated. It is also alleged that the inquiry initiated against the petitioner in the year 2004 for the incidences of the years 1999 -2001 was belated. The delay in itself shall vitiate the inquiry. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Ramesh Chander Singh V/s. High Court of Allahabad and another [(2007) 4 SCC 247] and of Yoginath D. Bagde V/s. State of Maharashtra and another [(1999) 7 SCC 739]. Mr. Sinha has strenuously urged that the allegation of lack of integrity/motive of defiance of law are not proved at all.