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)
India Tax Due Date - February 2026.
Sr No Due Date Related to Compliance to be made 1 11.02.2026 GST ...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recently notified the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Amendment Rules, 2025, introducing important p...
-
Introduction Employee welfare is a cornerstone of corporate responsibility, and gratuity forms a critical part of the social security benefi...
-
The overall effective tax rate of a U.S. multinational corporation may have significant impact on the value of its stock. Therefore, it ...
-
A tax investigation is one of the most stressful events a company can face. It disrupts operations, consumes resources, and carries signific...
-
This is to update you about an important decision by Hon’ble Madras High Court (‘ HC ’/’ Court ’) in the case of ARS Steel and Alloy Inte...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) are no longer confined to large conglomerates. Mid-market deals, family-owned businesses, PE-backed exits...
-
In a ruling that provides crucial clarity on the taxation of foreign enterprises in India, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tri...
-
Clarifications from the GST Council The GST Council has recommended the following clarifications on ISD and cross charge:
No comments:
Post a Comment