SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                         [2019] 13 S.C.R. 109                             109


             SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMARE                                   A
                                  v
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 7306 of 2019)
                       SEPTEMBER 16, 2019                                 B
       [DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ]
      Judiciary:
       Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1979: r.‘5’ – Major penalties – Quantum of punishment –                   C
Justification of – Allegation that judicial officer had proximate
relationship with a lady lawyer – Certain judicial orders passed in
favour of lawyers’ clients, her relatives – Dismissal order of judicial
officer – Upheld by the courts below – On appeal, held: Officer
decided the cases because of his proximate relationship with a lady
                                                                          D
lawyer and not because the law required him to do so – This is also
gratification of a different kind – Judicial Officer concerned did
not live upto the expectations of integrity, behavior and probity
expected of him – His conduct is as such that no leniency can be
shown – Thus, the punishment of dismissal from service was justified.
       Judicial officer – Standard of conduct – Expectation of –          E
Held: Judge is judged by his quality of judgments as also by the
quality and purity of his character – Impeccable integrity should
be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge – One who
stands in judgments over others should be incorruptible – That is
the high standard which is expected of Judges.                            F
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 The first and foremost quality required in a
Judge is integrity. The need of integrity in the judiciary is much
higher than in other institutions. The judiciary is an institution
whose foundations are based on honesty and integrity. It is,              G
therefore, necessary that judicial officers should possess the
sterling quality of integrity. The behavior of a Judge has to be of
an exacting standard, both inside and outside the Court. Judges
are also public servants. A Judge should always remember that
                                                                          H
                                 109
110            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not only by his
      quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his
      character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public
      and personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over
      others should be incorruptible. That is the high standard which
B     is expected of Judges. Judges must remember that they are not
      merely employees but hold high public office. A judge must decide
      the case only on the basis of the facts on record and the law
      applicable to the case. If a judge decides a case for any extraneous
      reasons then he is not performing his duty in accordance with
      law. The word ‘gratification’ does not only mean monetary
C     gratification. Gratification can be of various types. It can be
      gratification of money, gratification of power, gratification of lust
      etc.,etc. [Para 6-11][112-D, F, H; 113-A-B, F-G]
             1.2 In the instant case, the officer decided the cases because
      of his proximate relationship with a lady lawyer and not because
D     the law required him to do so. This is also gratification of a different
      kind. The Judicial Officer concerned did not live upto the
      expectations of integrity, behavior and probity expected of him.
      His conduct is as such that no leniency can be shown and he
      cannot be visited with a lesser punishment.[Para 11, 12]
E     [113-H; 114-A]
            Tarak Singh v. JyotiBasu (2005) 1 SCC 201; Daya
            Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad and Others (1987)
            3 SCC 19; R. C. Chandel v. High Court of Madhya
            Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 58 - referred to.
F                             Case Law Reference
      (2005) 1 SCC 201                 referred to               Para 6
      (1987) 3 SCC 19                  referred to               Para 7
      (2012) 8 SCC 58                  referred to               Para 9
G
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7306
      of 2019.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2015 of the High
      Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1342 of 2010.
H
           SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMARE v                                      111
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

       Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Advs.           A
for the Appellant.
      Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Anisha Mathur,
Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Rajarajan, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Advs. for
the Respondents.
      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:                     B
                            JUDGMENT
      1. Leave granted.
      2. The appellant was a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as a
Judicial Magistrate on 01.03.1985. On 08.02.2001, he was put under           C
suspension and dismissed from service on 15.01.2004. The appellant
challenged his writ petition filed before the High Court. The same was
dismissed. Notice was issued in the special leave petition on 14.12.2015
limited to the question of quantum of punishment. The only issue to be
decided is whether the punishment imposed upon him is justified or a
lenient view can be taken in the matter.                                     D

       3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to
the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1979, especially Rule ‘5’ thereof. We are concerned
with the portion dealing with major penalties, which reads as follows:
                                                                             E
      “Major Penalties -
      (vii) compulsory retirement;
      (viii) removal from Service which shall not be a disqualification
      for future employment under Government;
      (ix) dismissal from Service which shall ordinarily be a                F
      disqualification for future employment under Government:
      Provided that, in every case in which the charge of acceptance
      from any person of any gratification, other than legal remuneration,
      as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official
      act is established, the penalty mentioned in clause (viii) or (ix)     G
      shall be imposed;
      Provided further that, in any exceptional case and for special
      reasons recorded in writing any other penalty may be imposed”
       4. Emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the
first proviso wherein it is stated that if an employee is held guilty        H
112             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     of accepting gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or
      reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, the penalty mentioned
      in clause (viii) or (ix), i.e., removal from service or dismissal from service
      shall be imposed.
             5. We are only concerned with the issue of penalty and we need
B     not go into the entire gamut of facts. However, for the purpose of deciding
      this appeal, it would be necessary to mention the core allegation made
      against the appellant. The allegation was that he had a proximate
      relationship with a lady lawyer and due to this relationship he passed
      certain judicial orders in favour of her clients, including her mother and
      brother when they were parties to certain proceedings. Those findings
C
      of fact have been upheld by all courts and even this Court has not
      interfered with those findings and issued notice limited to the quantum of
      punishment.
             6. The first and foremost quality required in a Judge is
      integrity. The need of integrity in the judiciary is much higher than in
D
      other institutions. The judiciary is an institution whose foundations are
      based on honesty and integrity. It is, therefore, necessary that judicial
      officers should possess the sterling quality of integrity. This Court in
      Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu [(2005) 1 SCC 201] held as follows:-
             “Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline, apart from others.
E
             It is high time the judiciary took utmost care to see that the temple
             of justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to a
             catastrophe in the judicial-delivery system resulting in the failure
             of public confidence in the system. It must be remembered that
             woodpekers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside.”
F
             7. The behavior of a Judge has to be of an exacting standard,
      both inside and outside the Court. This Court in Daya Shankar v. High
      Court of Allahabad and Others [(1987) 3 SCC 1] held thus:
             “Judicial Officers cannot have two standards, one in the court
G            and other outside the court. They must have only one standard of
             rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely
             unworthy of the office they occupy.”
            8. Judges are also public servants. A Judge should always
      remember that he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not only
      by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his
H
            SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMARE v                                          113
           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and            A
personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others should
be incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges.
      9. Judges must remember that they are not merely employees but
hold high public office. In R. C. Chandel v. High Court of Madhya
Pradesh [(2012) 8 SCC 58], this Court held that the standard of conduct           B
expected of a Judge is much higher than that of an ordinary person. The
following observations of this Court are relevant:
       “37. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and
       the Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public
       office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State.     C
       In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent
       the State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust.
       A Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and
       unimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the core with
       high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must
       feel secure that Judge before whom his matter has come, would              D
       deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration.
       The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than
       an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the
       society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society
       cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness             E
       required of a Judge. A Judge like Caesar’s wife, must be above
       suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon
       the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and rule of law
       to survive, judicial system and the judicial process have to be strong
       and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity,
       impartially and intellectual honesty.”                                     F

       10. There can be no manner of doubt that a judge must decide the
case only on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to
the case. If a judge decides a case for any extraneous reasons then he
is not performing his duty in accordance with law.
                                                                                  G
       11. In our view the word ‘gratification’ does not only mean
monetary gratification. Gratification can be of various types. It can be
gratification of money, gratification of power, gratification of lust etc.,etc.
In this case the officer decided the cases because of his proximate
relationship with a lady lawyer and not because the law required him to
do so. This is also gratification of a different kind.                            H
114                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A            12. The Judicial Officer concerned did not live upto the
      expectations of integrity, behavior and probity expected of him. His
      conduct is as such that no leniency can be shown and he cannot be
      visited with a lesser punishment.
            13. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly,
B     dismissed.


      Nidhi Jain                                              Appeal dismissed.



C




D




E




F




G




H