Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii). Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, made a request that though the petition is listed for admission, the same may be heard finally at the stage of admission itself considering that the career of a Judicial Officer is at stake. Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, did not oppose the request and hence, the petition is heard finally.

6. As far as the preliminary submission with respect to the availability of an alternative remedy of review is concerned, Mr. Anturkar submitted that the recommendation in this matter was by the High Court and then the impugned order was passed by the State Government. The Government is certainly not expected to review the order in such a situation. He submitted that even if the relevant rule is read to mean a review to the High Court on the administrative side, inasmuch as a Disciplinary Committee of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Senior Judges had taken the decision on administrative side, it would be desirable that the High Court examines the challenge to the order on the judicial side rather than sending the petitioner for the review. We are in agreement with the submission of Mr. Anturkar. In any case, the rule of exhaustion of internal statutory remedies is a rule of self limitation and in appropriate cases the High Court may not insist on exhaustion of this alternative remedy. This view has been taken by the Apex Court in a number of judgments and in the present case also, we feel that it will not be advisable to drive the petitioner to seek a review.

7. The submissions of Mr. Anturkar were broadly twofold. (A) Firstly that, the impugned order was not called for in the facts of the case and that the legality of a judicial order or propriety thereof cannot be subject of a departmental inquiry. (B) Secondly, he submitted that the action against the petitioner was in breach of relevant Rule 9(2) of the MCS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.

8. For examining the first submission of Mr. Anturkar, we turn to the three charges which were levelled against the petitioner. The first out of them was the most serious one, namely, granting orders of bail in cases where the petitioner did not have jurisdiction and when bail applications were rejected by the Court of Sessions and that this was done by resorting to corrupt practices. We shall advert to this charge a little later. As far as the other two charges, namely, being vindictive to Advocate Gaikwad, practising in the Court of Yeola and not following the proper procedure in criminal matters, particularly under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same are somewhat interconnected. This is because it is this Advocate Gaikwad who had complained against the petitioner of not following the correct procedures.

(ii). There were some other instances also with respect to not recording the evidence correctly, or not entertaining the application or to proceed ex-parte in the matter of Mr. Gaikwad.

(iii). But the worst case is Summary Case No. 366 of 1996, Pramod Saskar v. Soma Patil. This Pramod Saskar was supposed to have been beaten up by the respondent-accused who was a Police Constable (Buckle No. 1244) attached to the City Police Station Yeola. This Constable had apprehended the tempo of Saskar on 6.9.1994 on the ground of infringement of some traffic rules. It was being run by complainant's driver one Ashok R. Jorvakar. The complaint of this Saskar was that the accused demanded illegal gratification from the driver, but that was not provided. When the complainant went to the Police Station, he was abused and assaulted. He lodged a complaint with P.S.I. Dhole of the same Police Station who asked him to approach the Criminal Court. The complaint was filed on 15.9.1994. The delinquent directed an enquiry and report under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Gaikwad, who was appearing for the complainant, submitted that the enquiry and the report ought to have been obtained from some other Police Station since the accused was a constable at the concerned Police Station. The complaint was dismissed on receiving the report from the concerned Police Station. The matter was carried in Revision No. 6 of 1995 and the Revision was allowed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, who accepted the submission of Mr. Gaikwad that the enquiry ought to have been directed to some other Police Station and the lower Court had accepted the report blindly. Mr. Anturkar defended the order of the delinquent as the case of a wrong order, at the highest.

11. In his defence, the delinquent made the allegations of mala fides against Mr. Gaikwad by pointing out that there were criminal and civil cases pending against Mr. Gaikwad in his Court. Thus, he referred to Criminal Cases Nos. 114/96, 116/96, 227/97, 231/97 and 232/97. Mr. Anturkar submitted that the complaint of vindictiveness was made with a view to pressurise the delinquent. Mr. Gaikwad, however, had pointed out in the enquiry that these were false cases filed against him with the help of some Lawyers and they were filed to create record in the defence of the delinquent. He had further pointed out that later on all those cases were withdrawn unilaterally by the complainants. The delinquent had pointed out that there were certain civil cases and execution proceedings against Mr. Gaikwad. Thus, Civil Suit Nos. 106/96 and 105/96 are mentioned as well as Regular Darkhast Nos. 17/87 and 17/94. Now, what is material to note is that this darkhast arising out of suit of 1987 is prior to the complaint of Mr. Gaikwad and much prior to the delinquent being posted to the Court in Yeola in 1994. The other suits are much subsequently filed. We are therefore, of the view that the complaint of Mr. Gaikwad cannot become frivolous or mala fide merely on that ground. The Enquiry Officer rightly held that Mr. Gaikwad was undoubtedly being harassed.