The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the dismissal of a judicial officer for passing orders in favour of a lady lawyer with whom he had a proximate relationship..The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose..The appellant, Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare was a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate in 1985..In 2001, he was put under suspension. The allegation was that he had a proximate relationship with a lady lawyer and due to this relationship he passed certain judicial orders in favour of her clients, including her mother and brother when they were parties to certain proceedings..He was dismissed from service on January 15, 2004. The appellant challenged this by filing writ petition filed before the High Court. The same was dismissed leading to the appeal in Supreme Court..Notice was issued in the special leave petition in 2015 limited to the question of quantum of punishment. The only issue to be decided was whether the punishment imposed upon him is justified or a lenient view can be taken in the matter..The Supreme Court noted that findings of fact have been upheld by all courts and even the Supreme Court has not interfered with the findings..The Court stated that the first and foremost quality required in a Judge is integrity and the need of integrity in the judiciary is much higher than in other institutions..“The judiciary is an institution whose foundations are based on honesty and integrity. It is, therefore, necessary that judicial officers should possess the sterling quality of integrity.”.The Court also cautioned that a judge, being a public servant, is judged not only by the quality of his judgments but also by the “purity of his character”. Hence, it was imperative that integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a judge..“Judges are also public servants. A Judge should always remember that he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not only by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others should be incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges.”.A judge must decide the case only on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If a judge decides a case for any extraneous reasons then he is not performing his duty in accordance with law, the Court said..The Court also noted that the word ‘gratification’ does not only mean monetary gratification. Gratification can be of various types. It can be the gratification of money, gratification of power, gratification of lust etc..In this case, the officer decided the cases because of his proximate relationship with a lady lawyer and not because the law required him to do so. This is also the gratification of a different kind, the Court held..Thus, the Court ruled that the Judicial Officer concerned did not live up to the expectations of integrity, behavior, and probity expected of him. His conduct was such that no leniency can be shown and he cannot be visited with a lesser punishment..The Court, therefore, dismissed the case..[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the dismissal of a judicial officer for passing orders in favour of a lady lawyer with whom he had a proximate relationship..The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose..The appellant, Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare was a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate in 1985..In 2001, he was put under suspension. The allegation was that he had a proximate relationship with a lady lawyer and due to this relationship he passed certain judicial orders in favour of her clients, including her mother and brother when they were parties to certain proceedings..He was dismissed from service on January 15, 2004. The appellant challenged this by filing writ petition filed before the High Court. The same was dismissed leading to the appeal in Supreme Court..Notice was issued in the special leave petition in 2015 limited to the question of quantum of punishment. The only issue to be decided was whether the punishment imposed upon him is justified or a lenient view can be taken in the matter..The Supreme Court noted that findings of fact have been upheld by all courts and even the Supreme Court has not interfered with the findings..The Court stated that the first and foremost quality required in a Judge is integrity and the need of integrity in the judiciary is much higher than in other institutions..“The judiciary is an institution whose foundations are based on honesty and integrity. It is, therefore, necessary that judicial officers should possess the sterling quality of integrity.”.The Court also cautioned that a judge, being a public servant, is judged not only by the quality of his judgments but also by the “purity of his character”. Hence, it was imperative that integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a judge..“Judges are also public servants. A Judge should always remember that he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not only by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others should be incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges.”.A judge must decide the case only on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If a judge decides a case for any extraneous reasons then he is not performing his duty in accordance with law, the Court said..The Court also noted that the word ‘gratification’ does not only mean monetary gratification. Gratification can be of various types. It can be the gratification of money, gratification of power, gratification of lust etc..In this case, the officer decided the cases because of his proximate relationship with a lady lawyer and not because the law required him to do so. This is also the gratification of a different kind, the Court held..Thus, the Court ruled that the Judicial Officer concerned did not live up to the expectations of integrity, behavior, and probity expected of him. His conduct was such that no leniency can be shown and he cannot be visited with a lesser punishment..The Court, therefore, dismissed the case..[Read Judgment]
