“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.”

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

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 15539 of 2022

Dated on – 23^rd 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 19^th 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 6^th 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