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)
New Customs Scheme for Manufacturing Sector
The Regulations enable an Authorized Importer to clear the imported goods directly from port to its manufacturing unit (‘ Authorised Premi...
-
Direct Tax · No change in the rate of corporate tax including surcharge & cess.
-
Buyback is an important provision related to Share Capital of a company. Rule 17 of the Companies Act set out norms for buyback...
-
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...
-
The Input Service Distributor (ISD) mandate, introduced in the Union Budget 2024, will take effect from April 1, 2025, as per amendments to ...
-
In this post, I will discuss Secretarial Standards related to Proxies under SS – 2. Right to Appoint: A Member entitled to attend and ...
-
The Union Budget 2025 introduces significant amendments to transfer pricing (TP) regulations under the Income Tax Act. These changes focu...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
The Income Tax Department has developed the latest JAVA base ITR Forms utility. ITR-1 (Sahaj) and ITR-4S (Subam) JAVA base utility has ...
-
Sr No Due Date Related to Compliance to be made 1 11.02.2025 GST ...
No comments:
Post a Comment