Judiciary — Maintenance of highest standard of propriety and probity — Rule of Law — Constitution of India Arts. 235 and 233.

The issue that was raised in the appeal by the appellant was whether the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing on the appellant the punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 5(1)(vii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 on the ground that the appellant-Magistrate was found travelling without ticket in a local train thrice and on each occasion, the behaviour of the appellant-Magistrate with the railway staff in asserting that the Magistrates need not have a ticket was improper and constituted a grave misconduct.

The inquiry officer held that the appellant was found travelling without ticket at least thrice and her behaviour on each occasion was far from proper and not commensurate with the behaviour of a judicial officer. The disciplinary authority considered her case and took a decision that she was guilty of misconduct and therefore decided to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement which was accepted by the State Government and consequently the impugned order of compulsory retirement was issued against the appellant.

It was submitted by the appellant that the aforesaid punishment awarded was disproportionate to the charges levelled against her and that she should at least be directed to be paid her pension which could be paid to her if she was allowed to work for another two years. It was submitted that the appellant had completed 8 years of service and if she would have worked for another two years, she would have been entitled to pension.

The Court held that it was unable to accept the aforesaid contention for the simple reason that the Court could probably interfere with the quantum of punishment only when it was found that the punishment awarded was shocking to the conscience of the Court. The case was of judicial officer who was required to conduct herself with dignity and manner becoming of a judicial officer. A judicial officer must be able to discharge his/ her responsibilities by showing an impeccable conduct. In the instant case, she not only travelled without tickets in a railway compartment thrice but also complained against the ticket collectors who accosted her, misbehaved with the railway officials and in such circumstances, how could the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to her be said to be disproportionate to the offence alleged against her. In a country governed by rule of law, nobody is above law, including judicial officers. In fact, as judicial officers, they have to present a continuous aspect of dignity in every conduct. If the rule of law is to function effectively and efficiently under the aegis of our democratic setup, Judges are expected to, nay, they must nurture an efficient and enlightened judiciary by presenting themselves as a role model. A Judge is constantly under public glaze and society expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a Judge. Judicial office, being an office of public trust, the society is entitled to expect that a Judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and ethical firmness by maintaining the most exacting standards of propriety in every action. Therefore, a Judge’s official and personal conduct must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. Obviously, this standard of conduct is higher than those deemed acceptable or obvious for others. Indeed, in the instant case, being a judicial officer, it was in her best interest that she carries herself in a decorous and dignified manner. If she has deliberately chosen to depart from these high and exacting standards, she is appropriately liable for disciplinary action.