MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Judges Must Act With Dignity And Must Not Indulge In A Conduct Or Behaviour Which Is Likely To Affect The Image Of Judiciary” – Bombay High Court Upholds Removal Of Civil Judge

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a detailed judgment, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, a former Civil Judge, challenging his removal from judicial service due to misconduct and discrepancies in duty. The bench comprising Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain upheld the disciplinary action taken against Pathak under Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, emphasizing that judicial officers must adhere to the highest standards of conduct.

The core legal points revolved around the allegations of misconduct, specifically Pathak’s absenteeism, misbehavior, and intoxication during duty hours, substantiated through multiple reports and enquiries. The High Court’s scrutiny was limited to assessing the procedural correctness of the disciplinary action and not re-evaluating the adequacy of evidence.

Pathak, appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division in 2010, faced severe allegations relating to his conduct and integrity, including frequent absences from the bench during office hours and intoxication. Noteworthy incidents reported included his abnormal behavior and intoxication during a refresher course at the Maharashtra Judicial Academy and disregarding court hours, severely compromising court operations.

Procedural Fairness: The Court noted that Pathak was given adequate opportunities to defend himself during the disciplinary proceedings, affirming that the enquiry was conducted in line with the principles of natural justice.

Substantiation of Charges: The enquiry substantiated the charges against Pathak, particularly his failure to adhere to expected judicial conduct by not maintaining court hours and appearing intoxicated at official functions.

Scope of Judicial Review: The High Court emphasized its limited scope under Article 226 of the Constitution, refraining from acting as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary committee.

Decision of the Court: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court supporting the decision to remove Pathak from service. The judgment highlighted that the imposed disciplinary action was proportionate to the established charges and necessary to uphold the judiciary’s integrity and public trust.

Date of Decision: 23rd April 2024

Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak vs. Registrar General,

Latest Legal News