0

“Bombay High Court Confirmed Civil Judge’s Removal from Service: Upholding Judicial Integrity Through Substantial Evidence of Misconduct and the Importance of Upholding Judicial Integrity.”

Blog, Bombay High Court , , , ,

Case Title – Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr.

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 15539 of 2022

Dated on – 23rd April,2024

Quorum – Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr., Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, the Appellant in the said case, was appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division on 19th of March,2010. During the term of Aniruddha’s serving as the Civil Judge Junior Division, several complaints were instituted against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak stating his misbehaviour, absenteeism and presiding over the court under the due influence of alcohol. Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak’s misconducted was highlighted from the reports of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nandurbar and the Shahada Bar Association. A discerning inquiry was conducted by the District Judge, Jalgaon during which it was observed that Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak’s behaviour was irregular which included not following court timings and wandering around in the near vicinity of the court. On dated 6th of January, 2018, Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak was involved himself in a serious incident at the Maharashtra Judicial Academy at Uttan, where he was spotted in an intoxicated state during a mediation course. Subsequently, he was relieved from the course. Charges were framed against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, which comprised of not following court timings, defection of duty, and being inebriated during the official duties. An inquiry committee found Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak guilty of charges 1,6 and 7 leading to his removal from the Judicial Service under Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the order of disposition was based on conjectures and lacked concrete evidences.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the Appellant was not adequately examined after the incident at Uttan and that the testimonies of the witnesses were conflicting.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the punishment of disposal from the position of power was disproportionate to the charges against him.
  4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case relied on the past judgment of the court, including the Udaysingh s/o Ganpatrao Naiknimbalkar Vs. Governor, State of Maharashtra, Bombay & Ors. And Rahul s/o Abhimanyu Ranpise Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., to support the contentions of the Appellant.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented while supporting the order of disposal of the Appellant, that the court should emphasize on the need for judges to uphold high standards of conduct.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the evidences clearly established the misconduct and inadequate behaviour of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak while presiding over the court as well as in the vicinity of the court, justifying his disposition from the Judicial Services.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case cited the seriousness of the charges and the importance of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Power of the Courts to issue Writs.
  2. Rule 5 (1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 governs the removal of the civil servants for misconduct.

ISSUES

  1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether the charges against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak were proven?
  2. Whether the punishment of disposition of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak was proportionate to the charges imposed on him?
  3. Whether there were any irregularities in the procedure in the disciplinary process?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr., recognised the narrow scope of the Judicial Review in the matter of services, stating that interference is warranted only if there are irregularities in the procedures or arbitrariness in the decision making. The court referred to the precedents and replicated the duty of the judiciary to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct. The court observed that the charges against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, including not following the timings of the court and being inebriated while presiding over the court were supported with substantial evidences. The court, considering the grave nature of the charges and the significance of judicial integrity, rejected the contentions of the Appellant that the punishment of disposition was disproportionate. The court in the present case, held that there were no irregularities in the procedures followed in the disciplinary process and that the decision of disposition of the Appellant from the service was justified. The court overturned and deemed inapplicable, all the precedents cited by the appellant, further strengthening the case of the disposition of the Appellant. The court, in the end, dismissed the Writ Petition instituted by the Appellant, upholding the decision of the disposition of the Appellant from the judicial services.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

Employee entitled to compensation although there was misconduct for his long service : Bombay HC on reducing the compensation amount

Blog , , , ,

TITLE : Raptakos Breet & Company Ltd v Gajanan M. Sonawane

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V. Marne

DATE :  22nd  December, 2023

CITATION : WP No 550 of 2020

FACTS

The petitioner employer has filed a petition challenging the judgement and order passed by Second Labour Court in directing payment of 60% backwages to respondent till his age of superannuation. Petitioner is a pharmaceutical company and the respondent was employed in the services of petitioner company. The respondent was found loitering in the change room instead of being present at his workplace and was chewing tobacco which is strictly prohibited. He was also found verbally abusing other members of the company. Subsequently an inquiry was done and he was dismissed from service. The respondent approached labour court and held that the enquiry was not done in a fair and proper manner according to the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the court awarded the respondent with 50% backwages till superannuation from the date of termination.

LAWS INVOLVED

44. INDUSTRIAL COURT TO EXERCISE SUPERINTENDENCE OVER LABOUR COURTS. – The Industrial Court shall have superintendence over all Labour Courts and may, –

(a) call for returns;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and procedure of such Courts in matters not expressly provided for by this Act and in particular, for securing the expeditious disposal of cases;

(c) prescribe form in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by officers of any such Courts; and

(d) settle a table of fees payable for process issued by a Labour Court or the Industrial Court.

ISSUES

Whether the labour court was right in passing the award for backwages when the respondent is a repeat offender of labour rules in the company?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, this court cannot sit on appeal over the said findings. The role of the court is strictly restricted to find whether there is any lack in the findings recorded by the Labour Court or Industrial Court.

The court after going through the list of offences held that the petitioners were only able to prove 2 of the three offences mentioned. The respondent had served with the petitioner for a substantial period of time. He had attained superannuation a in the year 2017. Loss of wage was from 2014 to 2017.

The court held that the Respondent undoubtedly deserves same penalty for misconduct of missing from duty and threatening and abusing a co-employee for the courts decision to pay only 50% backwages.

The court held that lump sum compensation would be adequate relief to the respondent instead of depriving him from wages.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

click here to view judgement

0

Exam cancellation due to misconduct is not an arbitrary decision: High Court of Delhi

Blog , , ,

Title: Kavi Vaidwan And Ors Versus Delhi Skill And Entrepreneurship University And Ors

Citation:  Writ Petition(C) 13486/2023, CM APPL.53269/2023 & 53270/2023

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

Decided on: 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

 Introduction:

KaviVaidwan filed a writ petition of Mandamus against the notice of cancellation of examination by Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the aforesaid petition on the grounds that the act of DSEU is not arbitrary and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. 

Facts:

Vide notice on 1st November 2021, Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University declared 42 vacancies of Junior Assistant/Office Assistant posts. The said recruitment was to be conducted in 2 tiers. The candidates who appeared and qualified in the 1st Tier Examination i.e. written examination were shortlisted for the 2nd Tier Examination i.e. Skill/Typing Test.

The DSEU, before the 2nd Tier Examination, has released the list of selected and waiting list of candidates. The impugned petitioner of the above list has filed applications of writ before this Court. The DSEU, on finding out the presence of unfair means in two centres, have cancelled the entire examination to maintain the sanctity of the examination.

The Learned Counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the action taken by DSEU is an arbitrary act and violates the Fundamental rights under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, after the discussion on the aforesaid case, held that in order to maintain the sanctity of the examination, the State and its agencies have not left with any option other than cancellation of the entire examination. The Court has expressed its regret for the examination’s cancellation as well as for the innocent students who suffered because of the misconduct and disorderly conduct of their colleagues.

The Court also observed that it is extremely difficult for the agencies to determine and identify the students who have been engaged in such malpractices and irregularities from the ones with bonafide intentions. Thus, DSEU has failed to determine the extent to which the very integrity of the entire examination was compromised.

The petitioner has failed to provide evident reasons for the Court to interfere in the case. Also, the Court has declared that the action of DSEU was within its authority while cancelling the examination and hence cannot be alleged as arbitrary in nature.

The said writ petition was accordingly dismissed with this judgment.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by –  Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement