The appellant was appointed sub-ordinate Judge in the Garhwa Civil Court. The Inspecting Judge inspected the records of the Civil Court and submitted a confidential report to the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court that the appellant did not prepare judgments on his own but got it prepared by some body else before delivering the judgments. The Chief Justice referred the matter to the Full Court. The Full Court resolved that the appellant be recommended for removal from service without any enquiry as it was felt that it was not practicable in the interest of the institution to hold an inquiry since it may lead to the question of validity of several judgments rendered by him. Pursuant to that resolution, the Governor exercised power under proviso (b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and removed the appellant from service. This was unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court. In appeal before the Supreme Court, it was argued that an enquiry for the purpose of removal of a judicial officer could not be dispensed with. It was also claimed that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was guilty of any misconduct as alleged. HELD dismissing the appeal:
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Judge alleged to have “outsourced” judgements can be dismissed without opportunity of hearing or enquiry
The appellant was appointed sub-ordinate Judge in the Garhwa Civil Court. The Inspecting Judge inspected the records of the Civil Court and submitted a confidential report to the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court that the appellant did not prepare judgments on his own but got it prepared by some body else before delivering the judgments. The Chief Justice referred the matter to the Full Court. The Full Court resolved that the appellant be recommended for removal from service without any enquiry as it was felt that it was not practicable in the interest of the institution to hold an inquiry since it may lead to the question of validity of several judgments rendered by him. Pursuant to that resolution, the Governor exercised power under proviso (b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and removed the appellant from service. This was unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court. In appeal before the Supreme Court, it was argued that an enquiry for the purpose of removal of a judicial officer could not be dispensed with. It was also claimed that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was guilty of any misconduct as alleged. HELD dismissing the appeal:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can GST Under RCM Not Charged and Paid from FY 2017-18 to October 2024 be Settled in FY 2024-25?
In a recent and significant update to GST regulations, registered persons in India can now clear unpaid Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) liab...
-
Particulars in Part 1 and Part 2 of Step-2 of registration form are required to be exactly the same as reported in the TDS statement. Plea...
-
In this post, I will discuss Secretarial Standards related to Proxies under SS – 2. Right to Appoint: A Member entitled to attend and ...
-
When India introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST), it created a big change in the way companies handle their taxes. Earlier, business...
-
What is a Digital Signature? Answer: A digital signature authenticates electronic documents in a similar manner a handwritten signatur...
-
Companies often give gifts to their employees to boost morale, celebrate achievements, and promote a positive work environment. Such gifts ...
-
In a recent and significant update to GST regulations, registered persons in India can now clear unpaid Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) liab...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
Section 150 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, specifies that taxpayers will not receive refunds for taxes paid or input tax credits (ITC) re...
-
Overview The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the applicability of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in tax treaties involvin...
No comments:
Post a Comment