Section 84 BNSS | Mechanical Declaration as ‘Proclaimed Person’ Without Due Procedure Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail is the Exception, Not the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5 Crore Drug Racket Adopted Son Is Class I Heir—Collateral Relatives Cannot Challenge Will in Probate Court: Madras High Court Assignment of Leasehold Rights is Transfer of Immovable Property, Not Supply of Services: Bombay High Court Quashes GST Show Cause Notice Against Aerocom Irretrievable Breakdown Is Cruelty in Itself When the Marriage Has Become a Legal Fiction: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means Attracts Prima Facie Offence Under Section 69 BNS: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings in False Promise of Marriage Case Scheduled Areas Are Constitutionally Protected, Not Constitutionally Frozen: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Municipal Inclusion of Tribal Territories Death of Innocents Due to Spurious Liquor Is a Serious Blow to Society—Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Because Viscera Reports Are Inconclusive: Orissa High Court When the Sole Eyewitness Is Dead, Confession Alone Can’t Convict: Madras High Court Acquits Chain Snatching Accused Office of Advocate in Residential Building Not a Commercial Use: MP High Court Absence of Judicial Satisfaction Renders Declaration Under Section 82 CrPC Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PO Order No Entitlement to Interest Beyond 1.5% Without Agreed Terms: MP High Court Dismisses Creditors' Appeals Against Official Liquidator's Adjudication Supervisory Jurisdiction Is Not Appellate Review : Kerala High Court Refuses to Interfere with Pension Reduction Ordered Without Regular Disciplinary Enquiry Revenue Authorities Cannot Alter Mutation of Acquired Land Based on ‘Recalled’ Judicial Orders: Karnataka High Court Section 45 Cannot Justify Indefinite Detention - Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Defeats Article 21: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 223 BNSS | No Cognizance Without Complainant's Oath: Gauhati High Court 304A IPC | No Presumption of Rash Driving Merely Because of Accident: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Child Death Case Auction Purchaser Has No Absolute Right: Calcutta High Court Upholds Borrower's Right of Redemption Under SARFAESI Act 15 Days’ Notice Under TP Act Is Sufficient To Terminate Monthly Tenancy After Lease Expiry: Bombay High Court Indefinite Blacklisting Without Authority or Hearing is Civil Death in Disguise: Allahabad High Court Environmental Tribunal Cannot Be A Toothless Watchdog… It Must Act Without Waiting For The Metaphorical Godot: Andhra Pradesh High Court FIR Lodged After Marital Breakdown Based on “Emotional Outburst”, Not Rape: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Case Post-Divorce SARFAESI | Deposit Before Bank Can’t Be Treated as Statutory Pre-Deposit Before DRAT: Kerala High Court Truth Cannot Be Gagged by Injunction: Madras High Court Refuses Celebrity Chef’s Plea to Restrain Allegedly Defamatory Social Media Posts on Intimate Relationship Probate Not Mandatory for Will Executed in Keonjhar – Civil Court Can Decide Title Based on Unprobated Will: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Daughter’s Suit Against Valid Gift to Nephew

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