The Bombay High Court Today (April 23rd) emphasized the importance of judges maintaining dignity and refraining from conduct that could tarnish the judiciary’s image, as it declined to reinstate a civil judge accused of appearing in court while intoxicated.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court upheld the dignity of the judiciary by refusing to reinstate Aniruddha Pathak, a civil judge who was removed from his position for allegedly appearing in court drunk.
Pathak, 52, had sought to challenge his dismissal through a petition, contesting the Maharashtra government’s Law and Judiciary department’s decision to remove him from the judicial service in January 2022. This decision followed a report from the principal district and sessions judge of Nandurbar, which contributed to his dismissal.
Justices A S Chandurkar and J S Jain of the division bench dismissed Pathak’s petition, stating that they did not find the removal order to be
“perverse or passed without any application of mind.”
They emphasized the paramount importance of judicial conduct, declaring,
“It is a universally accepted norm that judges and judicial officers must act with dignity and must not indulge in a conduct or behaviour which is likely to affect the image of the judiciary or which is unbecoming of a judicial officer.”
The court also highlighted the expectations placed on judges, noting,
“Judges, while discharging their functions, exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State and hence standards are expected to be maintained are of the highest nature.”
The allegations against Pathak included improper behavior while presiding over court sessions, not adhering to court timings, and repeatedly arriving at court under the influence of alcohol.
At the time of his removal, Pathak was serving at the Shahada court in Nandurbar district. He had been appointed as a civil judge junior division in March 2010 and served in various districts until his dismissal.
The court concluded that there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the disciplinary committee’s decision to remove him from service, emphasizing the high standards of respect and conduct expected from someone in such a position.
“We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, more so because the petitioner was occupying a post which is looked upon with high respect, and if the disciplinary committee has come to a conclusion of removal of service, then it cannot be said to be perverse,”
-the justices observed.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bombay High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
