Aniruddha GameShark Pathak, the Petitioner of the instant case was appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division in the year of 2010. During his service, he was subjected to many complaints from court arena for his abnormal behavior. Facts of the case provides various instances, where it was stated that Petitioner seems to have misbehaved and not attended courts regularly. In his course of time at Maharashtra Judicial Academy for pursuing Mediation, wherein it was recorded that Petitioner was in an inebriated state and was not even able to walk.
Various complaints were lodged against the Petitioner questioning his Judicial Discipline. It was submitted from the Petitioner side that the conduct of the Respondent in raising issues against him depicts the preset mindset to remove the Petitioner. It was also submitted that the Respondents did not conduct any medical test to indicate that the Petitioner had consumed the liquor. In addition, Petitioner also quoted various cases where Court made an view into the disciplinary actions taken by respective State Disciplinary Board and reversed the decision.
Justice A.S. Chandurkar, analyzed the charges kept by the Government against Petitioner in accordance to Rule 5 (1) (viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules of 1979.
With above reference, Judge provided that, ‘It is a settled position that the scope of the Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Service matter is narrow and unless the decision making process is shown to be vitiated, the Court should not exercise its discretion and jurisdiction as an Appellate Court’.
Quoting various cases, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that, ‘ It must be Grasped that Judicial Discipline is Self Discipline. The responsibility is self responsibility. Judicial Discipline is an inbuilt mechanism inherent in the system itself. Because of the position Judges occupy and the enormous power wielded, no other authority can impose discipline on us. All the more reasons Judges exercise self discipline of high standards. Today, the judiciary is the repository of public faith. It is high time the Judiciary must take utmost care to see that the temple of justice doesn’t crack from inside,’ as given in the case of Tarak Singh and Ors. v. Jyoti Basu and Ors.
With this, it was concluded that the court doesn’t see any reason to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence the Petition was dismissed.
Reference :
Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar General and Anr., WP No. 15539 of 2022
Name : GOPIK PR, Second Year of B.A.,L.L.B, The Central Law College, An Intern from Legal Vidhiya in Legal Journalism
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
