Strikes at Root Of Judicial Probity: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Judge Accused Of Bribery

The Judicial Officer had approached the High Court challenging an order directing his removal from service.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held, “The office of a Judicial Officer demands unimpeachable integrity, absolute honesty and conduct that inspires public confidence in the administration of justice. The credibility of the judicial institution rests not merely upon the correctness of judicial decisions but equally upon the character and rectitude of those who man it. Allegations of accepting money on the promise of securing public employment strike at the very root of judicial probity and erode public faith in the justice delivery system. Once such misconduct stands established in a duly conducted disciplinary inquiry, the High Court, in exercise of its constitutional control under Article 235 of the Constitution, is not only empowered but duty-bound to maintain the purity of the judicial service by recommending appropriate disciplinary action.”

Senior Advocate Surinder Kour represented the Petitioner while Advocate Aditya Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, was selected by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission and appointed as Civil Judge in the erstwhile District Doda. According to the respondents, during his tenure at Doda, the petitioner induced three persons, namely Chambail Singh, Ranjit Singh and Rattan Singh, residents of the erstwhile District Doda, to pay ₹2.5 lakh each on the assurance that he would secure their appointment in the Judicial Department by influencing senior officers of the High Court and members of the Selection Committee responsible for recruitment to Class IV posts. The Respondents claimed to have received a written complaint against the petitioner, on its administrative side.

An enquiry was conducted which revealed that the allegations were prima facie supported by the statements of the complainants and the conversation contained in a compact disc (CD), indicating serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Departmental proceedings ensued, and when no response was received from the Petitioner, the Full Court by its resolution imposed the penalty of removal from service. The recommendation was accepted by the Government, which issued a Government Order removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that Rule 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 governs disciplinary proceedings against civil servants and, in the absence of separate disciplinary rules for members of the subordinate judiciary, equally applies to Judicial Officers.

“While exercising such control, the High Court is constitutionally entrusted with the duty of maintaining discipline within the judicial service while simultaneously protecting its independence and integrity. The control vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution is comprehensive, subject only to the constitutional powers of the Governor in matters of appointment, posting and promotion. In disciplinary matters involving major penalties, such as dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the High Court is competent to conduct the disciplinary proceedings, record its findings and recommend the appropriate punishment. The formal order imposing such penalty is, however, required to be passed by the Governor in terms of Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the original record did not support the assertion of the petitioner that he was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing. The complaint submitted before a Judge was forwarded to the Registrar Vigilance for a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether it disclosed any substance. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, while posted as Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Doda, had accepted money from the complainants on the assurance of securing their appointments in the Judicial Department.

The Bench further found that the petitioner was duly served both with the charge-sheet and the notices issued during the regular inquiry. The record further indicated that the direction issued by the Enquiry Officer for communicating the dates of hearing through telephone, WhatsApp and email was also complied with. “Apart from making a bald assertion that the inquiry was conducted behind his back, the petitioner has failed to produce any material to rebut the documentary record establishing due service or to show that he was deprived of an opportunity to participate in the proceedings”, it added.

The Bench thus came to the conclusion that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and the petitioner was afforded more than adequate opportunity to defend himself. The Bench also found that the findings of guilt were supported by evidence and the recommendation of the Full Court, culminating in Government Order suffered from no infirmity or legal perversity.

Thus, holding that the penalty imposed was not disproportionate so as to warrant interference, the Bench dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Naveen Jamwal v. Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:237)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Surinder Kour, Advocate Manpreet Kour

Respondent: Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, Aditya Gupta

Click here to read/download Order