The Madras High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a Tiruppur District Judge accused of having been bribed into granting bail to a man charged with the rape and murder of a minor..A complaint against the District Judge had been made in February 2014. In his complaint, the father (complainant) of the minor victim alleged that the man who raped and killed his 17-year-old daughter had bribed the District Judge into granting him bail in January 2014..The contentious order had recorded that bail was being granted since no objections were made by the public prosecutor. Further, the order cited that the accused had already spent over 65 days in jail..The judge in question, K Ganesan, was due to retire on November 30, 2014. However, on November 28, the High Court Administrative Committee decided to retain him in service so that the departmental enquiry initiated against him could be completed..In due course, a High Court Enquiry Committee comprising Justice K Ravichandrabaabu found that the two charges made out against the District Judge stood proved. The two charges were:.The judge, on receipt of illegal gratification, had granted bail to the accused without taking into consideration the gravity of the offence (house trespass, rape and murder of a minor child). The bail was given within a short span of time and on very lenient conditions, owing to which the accused was even allowed back to the same locality of the victim’s family.The judge had granted bail, despite serious objections made to the same by the public prosecutor, and further deliberately recorded in his bail order that no objections were made..After considering the Enquiry Committee report and further representations made by Ganesan, the Administrative Committee decided to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon him..In February 2017, the Full Court of the High Court confirmed the dismissal. Accordingly, in April 2017, the state government issued an official order dismissing the judge from service..This dismissal was contested by Ganesan before the Division Bench of Justices M Venugopal and M Nirmal Kumar..Ganesan denied the allegations that he had accepted a bribe to grant bail. He asserted that no objections had been made by the public prosecutor when the matter had come up in January 2014, owing to which he had granted the bail..He argued that the charges against him were based on surmises and conjectures, given that there was no direct evidence of the same. Further, he argued that such allegations of corruption against a public servant have to be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt..It was also contended that the High Court did not have the authority to retain him in service beyond superannuation. It was his case that this power was only vested with the government, being the Appointing Authority..The High Court was however unable to accept any of his contentions. On the factual side, the Division Bench noted that there was enough proof to conclude that the public prosecutor had actually objected to the grant of bail in the January hearing, contrary to what was recorded in Ganesan’s bail order..Countering objections pertaining to the lack of direct evidence for the bribery charge, the Court noted that this ground by itself was not enough to halt an inquiry into such charges. In doing so, the Court also appreciated the difficulty in procuring direct evidence in such cases..“Even though in the present case, there is no direct evidence to speak about the receipt of illegal gratification by the Petitioner for the grant of bail, for lack of direct evidence, the charges levelled against the Petitioner cannot be overlooked because of the simple reason that in regard to an allegation of illegal gratification, finding/procuring a direct evidence is a Herculean task, since the ‘Beneficiary of Bribe’ will seldom come forward to depose about the tainted transaction.”.In this case, however, the Court found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to draw a presumption against Ganesan’s innocence..“It is quite obvious that by not incorporating objections raised by P.W.2 (Pubic Prosecutor) in the Bail Order in Cr.M.P.No.20 of 2014 dated 07.01.2014 by the Petitioner only leads to an irresistible and inevitable conclusion of presumption is to be drawn to the effect that the Petitioner/Delinquent Officer was bent upon releasing the Accused on Bail for palpable subjective reasons, best known to him.”.Moreover, the charges stood proved on principles of preponderance of probabilities, which is a sufficient standard for proof in disciplinary proceedings..“It is to be remembered that a ‘Disciplinary Proceeding’ is not a criminal trial and the standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as per decision Union of India V. Sardar Bahadur…”.The Bench also reiterated that the High Court is vested with sufficient powers to retain a judicial officer beyond superannuation if required to carry out disciplinary proceedings. Reliance in this regard was placed on Article 235 of the Constitution as well as Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules (Cadre and Recruitment), 2007. As noted in the order,.“it is to be pointed out that the control vested in the High Court by means of Article 235 of the Constitution is complete control subject only to the power of the Governor…the High Court can hold enquiries and impose punishment other than dismissal or removal subject, however, to the conditions of service and a right of appeal etc. mentioned in Article 235. .As a matter of fact, the control is vested in the High Court to effectuate the purpose viz., the securing of the independence of the Subordinate judiciary and unless it includes disciplinary control, the very object would be frustrated…”.Another objection raised by Ganesan that he had received notice of his retention in service beyond superannuation belatedly, was also found to be false..On these grounds, Ganesan’s dismissal from service as a district judge was upheld..“… in the light of natural, cogent, coherent, convincing evidence…comes to an irresistible conclusion that the Charge of Illegal Gratification against the Petitioner (Delinquent Officer) was proved based on the principles of preponderance of probabilities….…The said findings, by any means, cannot be said to be a perverse one. In fact, the said findings arrived at by the Hon’ble Enquiring Judge are based on evidence and this Court, while exercising its ‘Scope of Review’ is not to act as a ‘Court of Appeal’ and to interfere with the said Report.”.Read the order:
The Madras High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a Tiruppur District Judge accused of having been bribed into granting bail to a man charged with the rape and murder of a minor..A complaint against the District Judge had been made in February 2014. In his complaint, the father (complainant) of the minor victim alleged that the man who raped and killed his 17-year-old daughter had bribed the District Judge into granting him bail in January 2014..The contentious order had recorded that bail was being granted since no objections were made by the public prosecutor. Further, the order cited that the accused had already spent over 65 days in jail..The judge in question, K Ganesan, was due to retire on November 30, 2014. However, on November 28, the High Court Administrative Committee decided to retain him in service so that the departmental enquiry initiated against him could be completed..In due course, a High Court Enquiry Committee comprising Justice K Ravichandrabaabu found that the two charges made out against the District Judge stood proved. The two charges were:.The judge, on receipt of illegal gratification, had granted bail to the accused without taking into consideration the gravity of the offence (house trespass, rape and murder of a minor child). The bail was given within a short span of time and on very lenient conditions, owing to which the accused was even allowed back to the same locality of the victim’s family.The judge had granted bail, despite serious objections made to the same by the public prosecutor, and further deliberately recorded in his bail order that no objections were made..After considering the Enquiry Committee report and further representations made by Ganesan, the Administrative Committee decided to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon him..In February 2017, the Full Court of the High Court confirmed the dismissal. Accordingly, in April 2017, the state government issued an official order dismissing the judge from service..This dismissal was contested by Ganesan before the Division Bench of Justices M Venugopal and M Nirmal Kumar..Ganesan denied the allegations that he had accepted a bribe to grant bail. He asserted that no objections had been made by the public prosecutor when the matter had come up in January 2014, owing to which he had granted the bail..He argued that the charges against him were based on surmises and conjectures, given that there was no direct evidence of the same. Further, he argued that such allegations of corruption against a public servant have to be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt..It was also contended that the High Court did not have the authority to retain him in service beyond superannuation. It was his case that this power was only vested with the government, being the Appointing Authority..The High Court was however unable to accept any of his contentions. On the factual side, the Division Bench noted that there was enough proof to conclude that the public prosecutor had actually objected to the grant of bail in the January hearing, contrary to what was recorded in Ganesan’s bail order..Countering objections pertaining to the lack of direct evidence for the bribery charge, the Court noted that this ground by itself was not enough to halt an inquiry into such charges. In doing so, the Court also appreciated the difficulty in procuring direct evidence in such cases..“Even though in the present case, there is no direct evidence to speak about the receipt of illegal gratification by the Petitioner for the grant of bail, for lack of direct evidence, the charges levelled against the Petitioner cannot be overlooked because of the simple reason that in regard to an allegation of illegal gratification, finding/procuring a direct evidence is a Herculean task, since the ‘Beneficiary of Bribe’ will seldom come forward to depose about the tainted transaction.”.In this case, however, the Court found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to draw a presumption against Ganesan’s innocence..“It is quite obvious that by not incorporating objections raised by P.W.2 (Pubic Prosecutor) in the Bail Order in Cr.M.P.No.20 of 2014 dated 07.01.2014 by the Petitioner only leads to an irresistible and inevitable conclusion of presumption is to be drawn to the effect that the Petitioner/Delinquent Officer was bent upon releasing the Accused on Bail for palpable subjective reasons, best known to him.”.Moreover, the charges stood proved on principles of preponderance of probabilities, which is a sufficient standard for proof in disciplinary proceedings..“It is to be remembered that a ‘Disciplinary Proceeding’ is not a criminal trial and the standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as per decision Union of India V. Sardar Bahadur…”.The Bench also reiterated that the High Court is vested with sufficient powers to retain a judicial officer beyond superannuation if required to carry out disciplinary proceedings. Reliance in this regard was placed on Article 235 of the Constitution as well as Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules (Cadre and Recruitment), 2007. As noted in the order,.“it is to be pointed out that the control vested in the High Court by means of Article 235 of the Constitution is complete control subject only to the power of the Governor…the High Court can hold enquiries and impose punishment other than dismissal or removal subject, however, to the conditions of service and a right of appeal etc. mentioned in Article 235. .As a matter of fact, the control is vested in the High Court to effectuate the purpose viz., the securing of the independence of the Subordinate judiciary and unless it includes disciplinary control, the very object would be frustrated…”.Another objection raised by Ganesan that he had received notice of his retention in service beyond superannuation belatedly, was also found to be false..On these grounds, Ganesan’s dismissal from service as a district judge was upheld..“… in the light of natural, cogent, coherent, convincing evidence…comes to an irresistible conclusion that the Charge of Illegal Gratification against the Petitioner (Delinquent Officer) was proved based on the principles of preponderance of probabilities….…The said findings, by any means, cannot be said to be a perverse one. In fact, the said findings arrived at by the Hon’ble Enquiring Judge are based on evidence and this Court, while exercising its ‘Scope of Review’ is not to act as a ‘Court of Appeal’ and to interfere with the said Report.”.Read the order: