Supreme Court of India
ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 41
- Decided
- 13 January 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority’s finding of guilt and the imposition of compulsory retirement were justified and not disproportionate, and therefore upheld the order.
Summary
The appellant, a Metropolitan Magistrate, was charged with traveling without a ticket on three occasions and misusing her official identity card, leading to a disciplinary inquiry that found her guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Conduct Rules. The inquiry officer recommended, and the disciplinary authority imposed, compulsory retirement under Rule 5(1)(vii). The appellant challenged the punishment, arguing the charges were unproven, the penalty disproportionate, and that the inquiry officer’s recommendation was invalid due to a rule amendment. The Supreme Court examined the factual findings, the appellant’s defences, and the proportionality of the penalty, concluding that the evidence established the misconduct and that compulsory retirement was a justified sanction for a judicial officer. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing compulsory retirement on a judicial officer for alleged ticketless travel and misuse of official identity card.
- Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
- Whether the inquiry officer’s recommendation is valid despite the deletion of Rule 8(25)(e) by amendment.
- Whether the appellant’s defences regarding loss of identity card and ticket are credible and sufficient to overturn the findings.
- Whether a judicial officer is subject to a higher standard of conduct under the service rules.
Subjects
service lawdisciplinary actioncompulsory retirementmisconductjudicial officer conductrailway ticketingMaharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979proportionalityrule of law
Judgment
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 355
. . ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Civil Appeal No. 6966 OF 2004)
A
JANUARY 13, 2011
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
Service Law:
·r
Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) c
Rules, 1979 - rr.3 (iii), 5 (1) (vii) - Misconduct by Judicial
Officer - Charged with travelling ticket less in a local train and
misusing her official identity card - Punishment of compulsory
retirement by disciplinary authority - Justification of - Held:
Justified - Offence as alleged against the officer in memo of D
charges, established on her own showing, thus, the Inquiry
officer was justified in holding that charges levelled against
her stood proved - Punishment of compulsory retirement
awarded to her not disproportionate to offence alleged against
her - Thus, order passed by the High Court upholding the
E
punishment of compulsory retirement by disciplinary authority
does not call for interference.
Judiciary - Judicial Officers - Code of Conduct - Held:
. Judge's official and personal conduct must be in tune with the
highest standard of propriety and probity. F
It is alleged that the appellant - Judicial Officer
travelled without ticket in a local train thrice; and that she
misused her official identity card, made unnecessary
scene on the Railway platform and gave threats to the G
Railway staff. The charges were framed against her and
.+ the disciplinary proceedings were held. The disciplinary
authority held the appellant guilty of misconduct as per
Rule 3 (iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Conduct
355 H
-
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS '11011) 1 S.C.R.
'
A Rules, 1979 and imposed the penalty of compulsory
retirement in terms of r. 5 (1) (vii) of the Rules. The
appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of ~
compulsory retirement. The High Court dismissed the
petition. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is no reason to take a different view
from the findings recorded by the High Court that she had
indeed travelled on that day without any ticket and when
C accosted, she simply passed the identity card to the
hands of the ticket collector and walked away from the
place. The Railway and the departmental authority in the
inquiry took the same specific stand. If it was her case
that she lost her identity card, it was required for her to
D immediately lodge a complaint thereto with the
concerned authority or with the police which she never
did. The said identity card was in fact returned to her by
the Railway three days later. There is no justifiable reason
of the identity card being recovered at the '0' Railway
E Station if she had not at all travelled by train on that day.
[Para 16 and 17] [365-C-E]
1.2 So far as the incident of 13.5.1997 is concerned,
the specific defence of the appellant is that she had
purchased a first class ticket on 13.5.1997 but the same
F was lost while boarding the train which was not accepted
by the High Court holding the same to be highly
improbable as she had voluntarily paid the charges after
stating that Magistrates travelling without ticket could not
be asked to pay the fine. The fact remains that on
G 13.5.1997 also the appellant could not produce any valid
ticket or pass when she was accosted and asked to
produce her valid ticket/pass. The defence that she lost
ticket while boarding the train could always be taken by
anybody, but there must be some basic facts supporting
H such statement which could not be produced by the
ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR v. STATE OF 357
MAHARASHTRA
,
appellant in the instant case. [Para 18) [365-G-H; 366-A- A
BJ
~
1.3 Regarding the incident on 5.12.1997, there is no
dispute with regard to the fact that on that particular day,
she boarded a first class compartment at 'M' Station 8
although she tlid not have a valid ticket/pass in her
possession. She paid a penalty which was given to her
by one of her colleagues. Later on she took a stand that
she had purchased a season ticket but the said ticket
T was also found to have been purchased at 'D' Station.
Furthermore, on 5.12.1997, when the appellant was
c
caught without ticket and when she was asked to
produce the ticket, she could not do so nor was she
prepared to pay the charges on the ground that she was
a Magistrate and, therefore, has a right to travel without
ticket. It is established from the record that subsequently, D
however, she paid the amount of Rs. 102/-. [Paras 19 and
20) [366-C-E]
1.4 The letter written by the appellant to the General
Manager, Railway, as also the fact that she could not E
produce any ticket or pass for her travel between M and
D station clearly establishes the fact that on 5.12.1997,
she had travelled without ticket. In the said letter, to the
~
General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai the appellant
clearly stated that at times she is unable to buy tickets F
because of shortage of time for which she had been
harassed by the ticket collectors, therefore, .she should
be provided a free passage in a First Class compartment
of local trains for the purpose of reaching the courts in
time during such emergencies. A letter written
G
immediately after the incident on 5.12.1997 clearly
--~ indicates that she had travelled without ticket on
5.12.1997 and she had taken offence for demanding a
ticket from her as she is a Magistrate and she had made
complaint against the ticket collectors. The offence as
H
-
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A alleged against the appellant in the memo of charges,
therefore, for 5.12.1997 is established on her own
showing and, therefore, the inquiry officer was justified
in coming to the conclusion that the charges levelled
against her stood proved. [Para 23 and 24] [367-G-H; 368-
B A-8]
2.1 Rule 8(25)(e) of the Maharashtra Civil
Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 provided and
permitted an inquiry officer to recommend for the
C punishment to be provided in the facts of the case. [Para
26] [368-D]
2.2 On going through the records, it is found that the
disciplinary authority considered the records and,
thereafter, came to an independent finding that the
D appellant is guilty of the charges framed against her of
misconduct and that in the facts and circumstances of
the case, a major penalty like compulsory retirement from
service could only be imposed on her and consequently
such a punishment was decided to be imposed. The
E entire disciplinary proceedings got terminated with the
imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement. [Para 27]
[368-F-H]
2.3 The submission that the punishment awarded to
F the appellant is disproportionate to the charges levelled
against her and that she should at least be directed to be
paid her pension which could be paid to her if she was
allowed to work for another two years; and that the
appellant had completed 8 years of service and if she
would have worked for another two years, she would
G have been entitled to pension by addition of another 10
years of service, cannot be accepted since the quantum
of punishment could be interfered only when the
punishment awarded is found shocking to the
conscience of the court. [Paras 28, 29] [369-A-C]
H
•
ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR v. STATE OF 359,
MAHARASHTRA
~-
2.4 The instant case is of judicial officer who was A
required to conduct herself with dignity and manner
becoming of a judicial officer. A judicial officer must be
able to discharge his/her responsibilities by showing an
impeccable conduct. In the instant case, she not only
travelled without tickets in a railway compartment thrice B
but also complained against the ticket collectors who
accosted her, misbehaved with the Railway officials and
in those circumstances, the punishment of compulsory
retirement awarded to her cannot be said to be
disproportionate to the offence alleged against her. [Para c
29) [369-C-E]
2.5 In a country governed by rule of law, nobody is
above law, including judicial officers. In fact, as judicial
officers, they have to present a continuous aspect of
dignity in every conduct. If the rule of law is to function D
effectively and efficiently under the aegis of the
democratic setup, Judges are expected to, nay, they
- must nurture an efficient and enlightened judiciary by
presenting themselves as a role model. Needless to say,
a Judge is constantly under public glaze and society E
expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from
a Judge. Judicical office; being an office of public trust, the
society is entitled to expect that a Judge must be a man
of high integrity, honesty and ethical firmness by
maintaining the most exacting standards of propriety in F
I '
every action. Therefore, a judge's official and personal
conduct must be in tu11e with the highest standard of
propriety and probity. Obviously, this standard of
conduct is dhigher than those deemed acceptable or
, r-
\< ; ' ,,
obvious for others. Indeed, in the instant case, being a G
judicial officer, it was in her best interest that she carries
herself in a decorous and dignified manner. If she has
deliberately chosen to depart from these high and
exacting standards, she is appropriately liable for
disciplinary action. [Para 29) [369-F-H; 370-A-Bj- H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A 3. The conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary
authority are accepted. There is no reason to interfere
with the findings arrived at by the High Court giving
reason for its decision with which are fully concurred with
and finds justification. [Para 30] [370-C]
B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6966 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.04.2004 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 20 of 2001.
c C.U. Singh, K.K. Tyagi, lftekhar Ahmad, N. Annapoorani,
Bipin Jo~hi for the Appellant.
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Charudatta Mahindrakar, S. J. Patil,
Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal was
filed by the appellant herein being aggrieved by the judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High.
E Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. The issue that is sought to be raised in this appeal by
the appellant is whether the Disciplinary Authority was justified
in imposing on the appellant the punishment of compulsory
retirement in terms of Rule 5(1 )(vii) of the Maharashtra Civil
F Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 on the ground that
the said appellant-Magistrate was found travelling without ticket
in a local train thrice and on each occasion, the behaviour of
the said appellant-Magistrate with the Railway staff in asserting
that the Magistrates need not have a ticket was improper and
.,
"t
G constituted grave misconduct.
3. The allegation against the appellant was that she had
travelled without tickets on 21.2.1997, 13.5.1997 and also on
5.12.1997 when she was caught. The charges here not only
related to such incidents of ticketless travelling but also about
iH
ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR v. STATE OF 361'
MAHARASHTRA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
misusing her official identity card and for making unnecessary A
scene on the Railway platform and giving threats to the Railway
staff which was considered to be misconduct unbecoming of
a judicial officer as per Rule 3(iii) of the Maharashtra Civil
Services Conduct Rules, 1979.
B
4. In order to understand the gravity of the charges and
since it was the submission of the counsel appearing for the
T appellant that she was not responsible for any travelling without
tickets, we have to narrate the background facts leading to the
issuance of memorandum of charges against her.
c
5. On 28.5.1992, the appellant was appointed as a
Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay. Allegations were made by
the Railway officials against the appellant for three incidents that
happened on 21.2.1997, 13.5.1997 and on 5.12.1997. While
the appellant on 5.12.1997 boarded the train at Mulund, she D
was accosted by two ticket collectors during the course of her
journey from Mulund to Dadar who asked her to produce ticket
or her pass. The appellant, however, stated that she had given
her orderly money to buy a season pass which would be
produced at the Dadar Railway Station. Even at Dadar Railway E
Station, she could not produce any ticket for her travel between
the stations i.e. from Mulund to Dadar when she was asked to
pay the Railway fare and fine for having travelled without ticket
from Mulund to Dadar. However, another Metropolitan
Magistrate travelling by the next train reached the Dadar Station F
and on being informed about the plight of the appellant, he
came to the Station Superintendent and handed over to the
appellant Rs. 102/- which was paid by the appellant to the
railway officers against a receipt. Even prior to the said date,
I, it was alleged that the appellant travelled without tickets on two
-r dates i.e. 21.2.1997 and 13.5.1997.
G
6. On receipt of the aforesaid allegations made against
the appellant by the Railway officers, a preliminary inquiry was
held, on completion of which a Report was submitted on
25.3.1998 holding that the incidents of ticketless travelling by H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A the appellant on the aforesaid three dates had been established
against the appellant.
7. Consequent thereto, a Memorandum of Charges was
framed against the appellant and the same was issued on
17.12.1998. There were two specific articles of charges
8
framed against the appellant which were to the following effect:-
(a) The petitioner claimed that the Magistrates are not --,..
required to buy ticket or pass and are allowed to
travel in any local train, in first class without any
c travel authority for the purpose of attending duties.
(b) The petitioner was caught thrice for travelling in first
class compartment of local train without ticket I
travel authority and when caught the petitioner
D entered into arguments with ticket checking staff
....... '
and on 05.12.1997 at about 10:30 to 11 a.m.,
created a scene and threatened the ticket
collectors at Dadar railway station when the
authorities insisted that the petitioner pay the
necessary charges for travelling without ticket.
E
8. Alongwith the aforesaid Memorandum of Charges, the
articles of charges with the statement of imputation of
misconduct with list of charges alongwith list of witnesses were
forwarded to the appellant.
F
9. The aforesaid disciplinary proceeding of the appellant
was held alongwith two other Metropolitan Magistrates namely
Mrs. Rama Waghule and Mr. V.V. Phand. Since we are not
concerned with the charges framed against the other two
G officers, we refrain from referring to the same in the present -+''
case.
10. After receipt of the aforesaid Memorandum of
Charges, the appellant sent her reply taking up a definite stand
that the alleged incident of ticketless travelling on 21.2.1997 was
H deliberately concocted and imaginary whereas regarding the
ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR v. STATE OF . 363
MAHARASHTRA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
remaining two incidents of ticketless travelling, it was stated by A
her that the same were due to unavoidable circumstances as
set out more particularly in the said reply.
11. The disciplinary authority having not been s9tisfied with
the reply submitted by the appellant ordered for conducting an
8
inquiry against the appellant and appointed the inquiry officer
for holding a departmental inquiry against the appellant with
reference to the charges levelled against her. After conducting
a detailed inquiry and examining a number of witnesses, the
inquiry officer on 28.10.1999 submitted his report stating that C
the charges alleged against the appellant are proved. The
inquiry officer held that the appellant was found travelling without
ticket at least thrice and her behaviour on each occasion was
far from proper and not commensuratewith the behaviour ofa
judicial officer. The aforesaid Report submitted by the Inquiry
Officer was considered by the disciplinary authority consisting D
of the Chief Justice and Judges of the Bombay High Court and
it was decided to issue a notice to the appellant to show cause.
Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant
asking her to explain as to why the findings recorded by the
inquiry officer would not be accepted and why a major penalty E
including a penalty of dismissal from service ·would nat be
imposed on the appellant.
12. The appellant submitted an application on 24:01.2000,
pleading that. she may be permitted to examine herself and F
three independent witnesses as and by way of additional
evidence. The said application was, however, rejected by the
·· disciplinary authority, but the High Court extended the time for
filing the reply pursuant to which she submitted her reply to the
show cause notice on 9.3.2000. After receipt of the aforesaid G
reply, the disciplinary authority considered her case and took
a decision ~hat she was guilty of misconduct and therefore
decided to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement which
was accepted by the State Government and consequently the
impugned order of compulsory retirement was issued against
H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A the appellant on 27.9.2000.
13. Being aggrieved by the order passed, the appellant
filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality and
validity of the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement from the
B service.
14. The Division Bench of the High Court, as stated earlier
dismissed the writ petition as against which the present appeal
was filed. When the matter was listed, we heard the learned
counsel appearing for the parties at length and also perused
C the records and scrutinised the same very minutely in order to
arrive at a categorical finding regarding the guilt of the appellant.
Before dwelling further it will be useful to examine few relevant
facts of the present case. There are three incidents on the
basis of which· charges of misconduct against the appellant
D were framed. The said incidents were on 21.2.1997, 13.5.1997
and 5.12.1997. So far as the incident of ticketless travelling on
21.2.1997 is concerned, it is the case of the Railway as also
of the Disciplinary Authority that she had travelled without ticket
on the said date and when she was accosted to show her pass
E or ticket, she simply passed her identity card to the hands of
the ticket collector and went away before she could be caught
physically. The aforesaid identity card of the appellant was
however, returned to her on 24.2.1997 by the Railway officials.
The aforesaid incident was made a charge against which she
F had taken a categorical defence that she had lost her official
identity card and on receiving information that the same was
found at the Dadar Railway Station, she got it collected through
a Constable from the Railway authorities on 24.2.1997. Her
specific case in the departmental proceeding against the said
G charge was that she had never travelled by train on 21.2.1997.
15. So far as the said defence is concerned, the High Court
found the same to be without any basis particularly in view of
the fact that if the appellant was travelling as stated by her in a
car during the month of February, 1997, there was no reason
H why her official identity card could be found and traced at Dadar
ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR v. STATE OF 365
MAHARASHTRA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
' -< Railway Station. It was also held that she was the best person
to give some idea as to how she lost her identity card at the
A
Dadar Railway Station. It was also held that since no evidence
was led by the appellant on that behalf and since also the
Constable who had allegedly collected the identity card from
the Railway authorities on 24.2.1997 had not been examined B
· by her to establish her defence, the aforesaid defence taken
by the appellant was not accepted by the High Court and it was
'\"
held that the said charge of ticketless travelling on 21.2.1997
is proved in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. We find no reason to take a different view from the
c
aforesaid findings recorded by the High Court. The specific
stand of the Railway and also of the departmental authority in
the inquiry is that the appellant when accosted for her ticketless
travelling, she simply passed her identity card to the hands of
~ D
the ticket collector and went away and giving no opportunity to
the ticket collector to detain her. If it was her case that she lost
her identity card, it was required for her to immediately lodge
a complaint thereto with the concerned authority or with the
police which she never did. The said identity card was in fact
returned to her by the Railway officials on 24.2.1997. We could E
not find any justifiable reason of the identity card being
recovered at the Dadar Railway Station if she had not at all
""" travelled by train on that day.
17. There could be no other conclusions than what is F
arrived at by the High Court that she had indeed travelled on
that day without any ticket and when accosted, she simply
passed the identity card to the hands of the ticket collector and
'l.
,. walked away from the place.
18. So far as the incident of 13.5.1997 is concerned, the G
specific defence of the appellant is that she had purchased a
. first class ticket on 13.5.1997 but the same was lost while
boarding the train which was not accepted by the High Court
holding the same to be highly improbable as she had voluntarily ·
paid the charges after stating that Magistrates travelling without H
\
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r20111 1 s.c·.R.
~
A ticket could not be asked to pay the fine. Fact remains that on 'l'-
13.5.1997 also the appellant could not produce any valid ticket
or pass when she was accosted and asked to produce her
valid ticket/pass. The defence that she lost ticket while boarding
the train could always be taken by anybody, but in our
B concerned view, there must be some basic facts supporting
such statement which could not be produced by the appellant
in the instant case.
19. So far as the incident on 5.12.1997 is concerned, we
c find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that on that
particular day, she boarded a first class compartment at Mulund
Station although she did not have a valid ticket/pass in her
possession. She had paid a penalty which was given to her by
one of her colleagues. Later on she had taken a stand that she
had purchased a season ticket but the said ticket was also ,,._
D found to have been purchased at Dadar station.
20. On 5.12.1997, when the appellant was caught without
ticket and when she was asked to produce the ticket, she could
not do so nor was she prepared to pay the charges on the
E ground that she was a Magistrate and therefore has a right to
travel wit!)out ticket. It is established from the record that
subsequently, however, she paid the amount of Rs. 102/- >
21. In this connection, we may also refer to a letter written
by her on 8.12.1997 to the General Manager, Central Railway,
F Mumbai. The said letter was admittedly written by her·and it·
reads as follows:-
"I would like to mention to you that sometimes, I am
. required to enter into your local Trains to reach my Court ..+)
G in time, as the vehicle given to us is a pooling one which
takes a very long time due to unexpected traffic on the
roads or break downs. During such occasions, I am unable
to buy tickets because of short of time and.consequently
it had happened so, that I had to face your naggin1f licket
H collectors. Your lady ticket collectors at Dadar instead of
ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR v. STATE OF 367
MAHARASHTRA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
"' understanding our difficulties have further harassed us in
!he most insulting manner and this has left a deed scar in
A
our mind. If you care to know how nasty your people could
be, you may depute a representative to whom we can
explain the facts.
B
I ar;n aware that the Metropolitan Magistrates handling the
matters of any railway police station on central line get first
class free pass right from Nagpur to lgapturi. Even the staff
attached to such Magistrates also get free passes. We
also attend to the work of railways on Saturdays, Sundays
ard holidays. Are we therefore, not entitled, at least to
c
stand in the first class compartments of local trains only
for the purpose of reaching our Courts in time during such
emergencies ? Please do the needful in this matter urgently
by giving necessary instructions to the ticket collectors so
that we are not humiliated by your ticket collectors on this D
count and made to pay fine.
If you are of the negative opinion, that even this little
courtesy cannot be extended to us, please communicate
to me, so that I am prepared for such eventualities. Your E
early response would be highly appreciated."
22. The aforesaid letter as also the fact that she could not
produce any ticket or pass for her travel between Mulund and
Dadar station clearly establishes the fact that on 5.12.1997, she
F
had travelled without ticket.
23. Despite the aforesaid position, she had written a letter
to the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai clearly
stating that at times she is unable to buy tickets because of
...,,
.
shortage of time for which she had been harassed by the ticket G
r collectors, therefore, she should be provided a free passage
in a First Class compartment of local trains for the purpose of
reaching the courts in time during such emergencies.
24. A- letter written immediately after the incident on
H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A 5.12.1997 clearly indicates that she had travelled without ticket
on 5.12.1997 and she had taken offence for demanding a
ticket from her as she is a Magistrate and she had made
complaint against the ticket collectors. The offence as alleged
against the appellant in the memo of charges therefore for
B 5.12.1997 is established on her own showing and therefore,
the inquiry officer was justified in coming to the conclusion that
the charges levelled against her stood proved.
25. The next question that is posed before us is whether
C the inquiry officer was justified in recommending punishment
to the appellant. ,
26. We have looked into the aforesaid issue also in the
light of the provisions of the Rules. Rule 8(25)(e) of the Rules
provided and permitted an inquiry officer to recommend for the
D punishment to be provided in the facts of the case. That
provision which found place in the earlier Rules, however, came
to be deleted from the aforesaid Rules by the amendment
brought in the Rules in the year 1997. In that context, it was
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
E that since a recommendation has been made by the inquiry
officer regarding punishment, the entire findings are vitiated and
therefore liable to be set aside and quashed.
27. We are, however, unable to accept the aforesaid
submissions. On going through the records, we find that the
F disciplinary authority considered the records and thereafter
came to an independent finding that the appellant is guilty of
the charges framed against her of misconduct and that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, a major penalty like
compulsory retirement from service could only be imposed on
G her and consequently such a punishment was decided to be ,.
imposed. Finally, the entire disciplinary proceedings got 'f
terminated with the imposition of penalty of compulsory
retirement.
H
ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR v. STATE OF 369
MAHARASHTRA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
28. It was also submitted by the learned counsel appearing A
_,. for the appellant that the aforesaid punishment awarded is I
disproportionate to the charges levelled against her and that
she should at least directed to be paid her pension which could
be paid to her if she was allowed to work for another two years.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that B
the appellant had completed 8 years of service and if she would
have worked for another two years, she would have been
entitled to pension by addition of another 10 years of service .
.,
' 29. We are, however, unable to accept the aforesaid
contention for the simple reason that we could probably c
interfere with the quantum of punishment only when we find that
the punishment awarded is shocking to the conscience of the
court. This is a case of judicial officer who was required to
conduct he~self with dignity and manner becoming of a judicial
officer. A judicial officer must be able to discharge his/her D
responsibilities by showing an impeccable conduct. In the
instant case, she not only travelled without tickets in a railway
compartment thrice but also complained against the ticket
collectors who accosted her, misbehaved with the Railway
/
officials and in those circumstances we do not see how the E
punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to her could be
said to be disproportionate to the offence alleged against her.
In a country governed by rule of law, nobody is above law,
including judicial officers. In fact, as judicial officers, they have
to present a continuous aspect of dignity in every conduct. If F
the rule of law is to function effectively and efficiently under the
aegis of our democratic setup, Judges are expected to, nay,
they must nurture an efficient and enlightened judiciary by
... ~
presenting themselves as a role model. Needless to say, a
Judge is constantly under public glaze and society expects G
higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a Judge.
Judicial office, being an office of public trust, the society is
entitled to expect that a Judge must be a man of high integrity,
honesty and ethical firmness by maintaining the most exacting
standards of propriety in every action. Therefore, a judge's H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A official and personal conduct must be in tune with the highest
standard of propriety and probity. Obviously, this standard of
conduct is higher than those deemed acceptable or obvious
for others. Indeed, in the instant case, being a judicial officer,
it was in her best interest that she carries herself in a decorous
B and dignified manner. If she has deliberately chosen to depart
from these high and exacting standards, she is appropriately
liable for disciplinary action.
30. We fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the
C disciplinary authority. We also find no reason to interfere with
the findings arrived at by the High Court giving reason for its
decision with which we fully agree and find justification.
31. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the
same is dismissed but without any costs.
D
NJ. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search