X Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LOOKING at the nature of the controversy, we direct that while uploading the order, the Petitioner shall be described as 'X' in the cause title. The present petition challenges the dismissal of the Petitioner pursuant to a Departmental Inquiry held on the basis of allegations that as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, he had developed improper proximity with a lady Advocate (referred to as Ms.Y) who caused him to go astray and pass irregular, arbitrary and capricious orders for considerations other than judicial. He was charged on 9th March, 2001 for various acts of misconduct which are as follows: - -

(2.) THUS , on the basis of the acts of misconduct which were detailed in the documents supplied to the Petitioner, the Registrar observed that the Petitioner has brazenly abused his office which amounts to grave misconduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. A list of witnesses and a list of documents were forwarded along with the statement of imputations along with a Memorandum dated 19th April, 2001. The Petitioner denied all the charges, which according to him were based on distortion of facts, irrespective of record and events. He alleged malafides and hostile and inimical attitude towards the Petitioner. He then tried to explain his conduct by saying that the Head Constable Giyasuddin had been indulging in activities adverse to his interest in the Court inter alia representing to the litigants that he had a say in the decisions of the case in the Petitioner's Court that is how he was abusing his authority. The Petitioner submitted in his defence that the Head Constable was arrogant in his duties and never used to appear in uniform. The Petitioner reprimanded him many times in the Court. Because of the Petitioner's stern approach, the Head Constable Giyasuddin had turned hostile against him and was instigating the litigants to file false complaints against the Petitioner. It is the further defence of the Petitioner that the Head Constable was supported by some Advocates in cahoots with Giyasuddin.

(3.) A further written statement was filed by the Petitioner on 25th January, 2002 in which he sought to assail the case against him by alleging proximity of the Head Constable with the then District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge and the Superintendent of Police. In our view, all these contentions are by way of afterthought, having been taken up after almost about a year after the first written statement.