Judges, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion: Jammu & Kashmir High Court refuses to quash termination of Judicial Officer

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently refused to quash the termination order issued against a judge who was involved in facilitating evasion of stamp duty to the tune of ₹32 lakh [Javid Ahmad Naik v State of J&K & Ors.]. .A bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that judges' conduct must always be above any suspicion since the very nature of their job requires a higher standard of integrity."We may hasten to reiterate the proposition that the Judges, like Caesar‟s wife, must be above suspicion. Having regard to the nature of duties, the judicial officer is supposed to perform, a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity is expected from a judicial officer. The Judges are not like other Government employees, but hold high public office of trust and, therefore, should have sterling quality of integrity and unimpeachable character. It is in this light, the conduct of a judicial officer is to be gauged," the Court said in its judgment..The decision was rendered in a plea filed by one Javid Ahmad Naik, challenging his dismissal as well as the enquiry report and show cause notice issued by the court proposing his removal from services. Naik was appointed as Munsiff in the year 2003. In January, 2011, the petitioner was nominated as the jurisdictional Duty Magistrate during winter vacation. While occupying this post, he exercised the powers of sub-registrar of the district and registered five sale deeds in respect of 450 kanals and 17 marlas of land belonging to a migrant.The allegation against Naik was that while registering these deeds, he conspired with the vendees and facilitated the evasion of stamp duty to the tune of ₹32 lakh..Subsequently, one Bashir Ahmed Khanday wrote to the Chief Justice of India who in turn, directed the Chief Justice of the High Court and the District and Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, to conduct a preliminary enquiry.The preliminary enquiry prima facie revealed involvement of the petitioner in a serious misconduct and, therefore, the matter was placed before the full court.The full court ordered an enquiry which ended up concluding that Naik's conduct was under a serious cloud.In July 2019, Naik was removed from judicial service prompting him to approach the High Court challenging the same.Naik submitted in his plea that the complaint was mala fide and filed by a dreaded militant to teach the petitioner a lesson for having gone against his father in a civil litigation..The High Court found no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and said that he cannot be absolved merely because the complaint, which became the basis of initiation of enquiry, may have been filed with a person of doubtful integrity.The Court held that the enquiry officer was purely justified in holding the judicial officer guilty of serious misconduct and, therefore, dismissed the petition."The preponderance of probabilities clearly point to the involvement of the petitioner in the serious misconduct which resulted in evasion of huge stamp duty and conferring wrongful benefit on the vendees. This could not have been done by the petitioner without any ulterior consideration. Be that as it may, we do not find it a case of no evidence or perversity. The Full Court, which unanimously endorsed the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, has, thus, acted justly, fairly and in the best interest of justice," the judgment stated..The petitioner was represented by M/S GA Lone and advocates TH Reshi, Mujeed Andrabi and Mirza Saleem Beg. Advocates Shah Amir and Aatir Javaid Kawoosa represented the respondents..[Read Judgment]