The Allahabad High Court set aside a punishment order against a judicial officer who was accused of receiving “objectionable photographs” from a woman on Facebook and being in an improper relationship with her. After being selected as a civil judge, the judicial officer had received multiple friend requests on Facebook, many of them with queries about competitive examinations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UP: The Allahabad High Court overturned a punishment order against a judicial officer accused of receiving “objectionable photographs” from a woman on Facebook and being in an improper relationship with her.
Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh identified significant procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer (petitioner). These irregularities led to a punishment order under which the officer’s increments had been withheld since 2018.
“The principle of natural justice that demands the fair and transparent disciplinary proceedings must be adhered to in order to ensure just outcome, has been completely violated,”
-the High Court stated.
According to the case details mentioned in the High Court order, after being selected as a civil judge, the petitioner received multiple friend requests on Facebook, many of which included queries about competitive examinations.
In 2018, a complaint was filed with the District Judge alleging that while the officer was posted as a judicial magistrate, he had established a sexual relationship with a 25-year-old without her consent and lured her with a false promise of marriage. He was also accused of transferring Rs 1,000 to her bank account and giving her Rs 10,000 in cash.
In 2019, the inquiry officer exonerated the officer of the rape charge but concluded that the judicial officer violated judicial norms by accepting the Facebook friend request from an unknown lady and having a
“conversation with her showing some objectionable photographs, thereby paying Rs. 1000/- in her bank account and Rs. 10,000/- as cash.”
Following this, the High Court passed the punishment order against the judge.
Challenging the punishment order, the judicial officer’s counsel told the High Court that he had explained that the complainant had been in touch with him to discuss competitive examinations. Considering her request to pursue studies as bonafide, he had transferred the money, the Court was told. It was also submitted that when he realized that the woman was a “habitual blackmailer” who had blackmailed others as well, he filed a police complaint against her.
The judicial officer contended that the woman then filed a criminal complaint against him in 2018, just six days after he filed a case against her.
It was further submitted that the complaint against the judicial officer was not supported by an affidavit as required by the relevant rules.
After reviewing the charge, inquiry report, and the punishment order, the Court found that no evidence had been presented to prove the charges against the judicial officer and that even the complainant had not appeared in the inquiry proceedings.
The inquiry officer, by taking “irrelevant and extraneous facts” into consideration, made an adverse observation against the judicial officer despite exonerating him of the specific charge of rape, the Court remarked.
“Unless the complainant had appeared and proved her complaint and/or unless some evidence had been led to prove any part of the charge leveled against the petitioner, it never became open to the inquiry officer to make any adverse observation against the petitioner by relying on the FIR allegation (leveled by the petitioner), against the complainant. The burden to prove the charge was not discharged by the employer, to any extent,”
-the High Court added.
The Court held that once the judicial officer had been exonerated due to a complete absence of evidence, no room survived to make an adverse observation against him based on surmises, conjectures, or suspicions.
“In the said circumstances, the petitioner is justified in seeking quashing of the punishment orders on the above grounds,”
-the Court concluded, setting aside the punishment order.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Accused Judges
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
