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)
5 GST Judgments in 2026 Every Business Should Be Watching
The year 2026 has already delivered several landmark GST decisions that could significantly influence tax compliance, assessments, and litig...
-
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 issues before the Bench are - Whether when an expenditure is claimed to have been incurred by an assessee for promotion of his busine...
-
The posting had been move to another website. Please click the link below to get the access of the same. https://taxofindia.wordpress....
-
The Reserve Bank of India has introduced a new framework governing export and import transactions under FEMA. These regulations are effectiv...
-
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is warranted even if assessee makes false claim of Sec 80IA benefits ...
-
What is a Digital Signature? Answer: A digital signature authenticates electronic documents in a similar manner a handwritten signatur...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) [1] on whether a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the ...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Gujarat High Court (HC)1 on the taxability of corporate guarantee provided by the Petitio...
-
The overall effective tax rate of a U.S. multinational corporation may have significant impact on the value of its stock. Therefore, it ...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi High Court (HC) [1] on whether the newly introduced pre-deposit requirement for fi...
No comments:
Post a Comment