Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the issues raised before us during the course of arguments.

9. It is case where a judicial officer was served with a charge sheet containing seven charges. An Officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry. In the inquiry the administration led its evidence which includes the statement of stenographer referred by the counsel for the petitioner. In the inquiry two charges were found proved which are as under:-

1. Firstly that during the period 2008-2009, while you were posted as Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.2 Baghpat, Sessions Trial No. 380 of 2006 State Vs. Sanjay and others and Sessions Trial No. 566 of 2007, State Vs. Gajendra was pending in your court and the above sessions trial was withdrawn by Hon'ble High Court vide order passed in Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 239/2008 and it was directed to be decided by Session Judge himself but you decided the trial vide your order dated 23.1.2009, in an unfair and unjustified manner and decided the case for no valid grounds against all judicial norms, propriety and judicial discipline, in an irresponsible and improper manner amounting to misuse of the process of law in a gross dereliction of your duties presumably with a view to provide undue benefit to a party which leads to a reasonable inference of having been influenced by extraneous consideration whereas, working as judicial officer, you were duty bound to perform your duties sincerely, fairly and honestly, which you failed to discharge sincerely, honestly and fairly and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to your duties and thus you have committed a misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956.

The documentary evidence, which is proposed to be adduced in support of the aforesaid charge, is as follows:

1. Copy of the letter dated 03.12.2009, sent by the District Judge, Baghpat, to Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad.

2. Copy of the statement of Sri Vijay Dhar Dubey, Stenographer, Civil Court, Baghpat.

And

3. Copy of the order-sheet and papers of S.T. No. 380 of 2006 State Vs. Sanjay & others.

Oral evidence proposed to be recorded during the course of enquiry is as follows:

1. Statement of Sri S.P. Singh the then District Judge, Baghpat.

2. Statement of Sri Vijay Dhar Dubey, Stenographer, Civil Court, Baghpat.

And

3. Statement of the then Reader, posted in the Court of Additional District Judge, (F.T.C. No. 2), Baghpat, during the period January, 2009.

2...

3. Thirdly that on 22.8.2009 at 4.45 p.m. you approached to the Chamber of the District Judge, Baghpat and asked him not to take round of Courts and campus and assure you not to give adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Remarks, which is found to unbecoming of an upright Judicial Officer, thereby you have committed the act of Insubordination and misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.

The documentary evidence, which is proposed to be adduced in support of the aforesaid charge, is as follows:

1. Copy of the report dated 29.8.2009 submitted by the District Judge, Baghpat.

Oral evidence proposed to be recorded during the course of enquiry is as follows:

1. Statement of Sri S.P. Singh, the then District Judge, Baghpat.

And

2. Statement of Sri Mohd. Adil, 1st Additional Distt. Judge, Baghpat.

10. According to the counsel for petitioner, the allegation of disposal of the case in a haste is not made out and for that we need to elaborate the facts. It is a case where a trial was pending before the trial court which was ordered to be tried and decided by the district court. The District Judge transferred the case to the petitioner for the trial of the case. After transfer of the case, petitioner said to have acted in unfair manner and for that caused impropriety with extraneous consideration.