Allahabad High Court grants relief to judge accused of improper relationship with woman he met on Facebook

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside a punishment order against a judicial officer who was accused of receiving “objectionable photographs” from a woman on Facebook and being in an improper relationship with her..Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh found that there were gross procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer (petitioner), leading to the punishment order under which the officer's increments were withheld since 2018.“The principle of natural justice that demands the fair and transparent disciplinary proceedings must be adhered to in order to ensure just outcome, has been completely violated,” the High Court said..As per the case details mentioned in the High Court order, after he was selected as civil judge, the petitioner had received multiple friend requests on Facebook, with many queries on competitive examinations. In 2018, a complaint was filed with the District Judge alleging that while the officer was posted as a judicial magistrate he had established sexual relationship with a 25-year-old without her consent and lured her with a false promise of marriage. He was also accused of transferring ₹1,000 to her bank account and giving her ₹10,000 in cash.The inquiry officer in 2019 exonerated the officer of rape charge but gave a finding that that judicial officer violated judicial norms by accepting the Facebook friend request from an unknown lady and having a "conversation with her showing some objectionable photographs, thereby paying Rs. 1000/- in her bank account and Rs. 10,000/- as cash.".Following this, the High Court passed the punishment order against the judge. Challenging the same, the judicial officer’s counsel told the High Court that he had explained that the complainant had been in touch with him to discuss competitive examinations.Considering her request to pursue studies as bonafide, he had transferred the money, the Court was told. It was also submitted that when he realised that the woman was a “habitual blackmailer” who had blackmailed others also, he filed a police complaint against her.The judicial officer contended that the woman then filed a criminal complaint against him in 2018, within six days after he filed a case against her. It was also submitted that the complaint against the judicial officer was not supported by an affidavit as required by the relevant rules. .After perusing the charge, inquiry report and the punishment order, the Court found that no evidence had been adduced to prove the charges against the judicial officer and that even the complainant had not appeared in the inquiry proceedings.The inquiry officer by taking "irrelevant and extraneous facts" into consideration, made an adverse observation in the passing against the judicial officer, despite exonerating him of the specific charge of rape, the Court remarked.“Unless the complainant had appeared and proved her complaint and/or unless some evidence had been led to prove any part of the charge levelled against the petitioner, it never became open to the inquiry officer to make any adverse observation against the petitioner by relying on the FIR allegation (levelled by the petitioner), against the complainant. The burden to prove the charge was not discharged by the employer, to any extent,” the High Court added. .The Court held that once the judicial officer had been exonerated due to a complete absence of evidence, no room survived to make an adverse observation against him on surmises, conjectures or suspicions. “In the said circumstances, the petitioner is justified in seeking quashing of the punishment orders on the above grounds,” the Court said, while setting aside the punishment order..Advocates Akhilesh Singh, Jeetendra Kumar Yadav, Kumar Parikshit and Shivam Yadav represented the judicial officerAdvocates Ashish Mishra and Chandan Sharma represented the respondents.