The Allahabad High Court affirmed the dismissal of a judicial officer accused of dowry demand and attempting to influence a junior judge in a personal case, emphasizing that judicial officers should embody the role of high priests in the temple of justice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UP: The Allahabad High Court, underscored the sanctity of judicial office, likening judicial officers to high priests of a temple of justice. This statement came as the court upheld the dismissal of a judicial officer, Umesh Kumar Sirohi, who faced allegations of dowry demand and attempts to influence a junior judge in a personal case.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh emphasized that any transgression by a judicial officer for personal gain would be dealt with severely, stating,
“A judicial officer who defiles his office merits no mercy. Once the ‘bad fish’ is identified, it may not be retained in the ‘tank’.”
They asserted that judicial officers must zealously guard the purity of the judicial system, akin to high priests conducting rituals.
The court was addressing a writ petition filed by Sirohi, a former Additional District & Sessions Judge, who was issued two chargesheets by the administrative side of the High Court in 2016 and 2017.
The first chargesheet accused him of demanding dowry for his brother’s marriage (his brother also being a judge) and inflicting an injury on himself as part of a conspiracy to implicate his brother’s wife and her family. Sirohi’s wife had filed a police complaint against her sister-in-law and her family, leading to their prosecution.
The second chargesheet alleged that Sirohi had tried to influence an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) in the proceedings of the case registered by his wife and had made false allegations of bias against the then District Judge of Meerut.
In 2020, the full court of the High Court accepted the inquiry reports against Sirohi and recommended his dismissal from service. This recommendation was accepted by the State, prompting Sirohi’s current challenge.
After reviewing the arguments and records, the court determined that serious misconduct had been established against Sirohi. The charges of attempting to influence the investigating officer and demanding dowry were proven.
Regarding the case filed by Sirohi’s wife, the court found no evidence to refute the “allegation of exaggeration of the real occurrence”. It stated,
“The disciplinary inquiry in Departmental Inquiry No. 21 of 2015 is found to be fair and proper and conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Judge ‘A’, based on material and evidence collected during that Inquiry, with which the petitioner had been confronted. Also, that material cannot be described as extraneous or irrelevant.”
Concerning the second inquiry, the court found substantial evidence indicating that Sirohi had attempted to influence another judicial officer during a judicial proceeding. The court noted,
“In the course of his cross examination, the petitioner admitted having called the ACJM on telephone, through ‘I’, the lawyer representing the petitioner’s wife in the case giving rise to the misconduct.”
While dismissing Sirohi’s petition, the court highlighted the gravity of his actions, stating,
“The inviolable code of conduct and self-restraint to be always maintained by any human being who may ever come to occupy a judicial office, is seen clearly and irreparably violated, by the petitioner. In committing that transgression, the petitioner earned absolute demerit. It rendered him unfit to hold judicial office, any further. As with the mythological ‘Shishupal’, so with the petitioner, he made that ‘one’ transgression that could not be spared.”
READ/DOWNLOAD ORDER-
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Dowry
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
