Keywords: JUDGE, MONEY AND STRANGER
On Monday, Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court that upheld a judicial officer’s dismissal from service for allegedly accepting a “favour” from a “stranger”
In 2016, there was an inquiry initiated against the judicial officer after finding of some discrepancies in his bank statement. The inquiry report dated June 28, 2021, was passed and a decision was taken by High Court’s full Court to dismiss him from service.
In March 2023, Delhi High Court observed that the facts of the matter revealed that the acceptance of payment was indeed from a stranger and the same is, without fail, unbecoming of a judicial officer especially when he is officiating. A post of Judicial Officer is a coveted one with responsibilities attached to it, he is expected to be unceremonious and not take things in a easy manner, he is expected to be more prudent and at the end of the day “A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be Judged.
The petitioner filed Statement of Defense twice before the Officer, but on neither occasion did the name of the ‘stranger’ crop up. Not only that, the said name of the ‘stranger‟ was also not included in the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner before the Officer initially, however, his name was included later only after the examination-in-chief of two witnesses (including that of the petitioner himself) had already stood recorded.
Today, a bench comprising of Justice Hrikshikesh Roy and Justice Pnakaj Mithal dismissed the appeal filed by the Judicial Officer, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court.
CASE TITLE – NAVEEN ARORA V. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR
Written by- Nikita Soni, College name – YCLC Law College Pune, Semester- 7th an intern under Legal Vidhiya
