Srinagar, Aug 1, KDC: Observing that a judicial officer who “indulged in corruption and abuse of official position” strikes at the very root of judicial probity, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by a former magistrate challenging his removal from service over a cash-for-jobs fraud.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar upheld Government Order No. 2704-JK(LD) of 2022 dated May 20, 2022, which had removed the former Munsiff from service following a departmental inquiry that found him guilty of gross misconduct.
The case dates back to March 2018, when three job aspirants from Doda district submitted a written complaint to the Chief Justice. The complainants alleged that while posted as Additional Special Mobile Magistrate in Doda in 2015, the officer lured them into paying ₹2.50 lakh each under the promise of securing Class IV appointments in the Judicial Department by influencing selection committee members.
A preliminary inquiry conducted by the Registrar Vigilance prima facie substantiated the allegations based on consistent statements from the victims and an audio recording. Subsequent regular departmental inquiry proceedings were entrusted to a High Court Judge.
In his report submitted in August 2021, the Enquiry Officer found all charges fully proved. The report highlighted that despite multiple notices served through official channels, the officer displayed “defiance” and chose not to participate, forcing the inquiry to proceed ex-parte. Accepting the findings, the Full Court proposed major punishment, which was subsequently accepted by the Union Territory administration, culminating in his removal.
Challenging his removal under WP(C) No. 2510/2022, the former officer contended that he was never served with a charge-sheet or show-cause notice, that the ex-parte proceedings violated natural justice, and that the compact disc containing voice recordings lacked mandatory certification under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
Dismissing the arguments, the Division Bench perused the original records and noted that the officer was duly served on multiple occasions through the concerned Principal District Judges and Registry officials, but consciously opted to abstain.
Addressing the procedural challenge, the Bench said that the Enquiry Officer had primarily relied upon the uncontroverted oral testimony of the complainants, making technical objections regarding the CD irrelevant. The Court said that the rule of audi alteram partem protects a diligent litigant and “cannot be converted into a weapon by one who, despite due notice, chooses not to avail the opportunity afforded to him”.
Reiterating the uncompromising standards required of the judiciary, the Bench observed that the credibility of the judicial institution rests upon the character and rectitude of those who man it.
“Allegations of accepting money on the promise of securing public employment strike at the very root of judicial probity and erode public faith in the justice delivery system. Once such misconduct stands established in a duly conducted disciplinary inquiry, the High Court is not only empowered but duty-bound to maintain the purity of the judicial service,” the Court held.
Finding no procedural infirmity or legal perversity in the disciplinary proceedings or the final executive order, the High Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the former magistrate’s removal from service. (KDC)
