Unbecoming: HC refuses to interfere in suspension order of a Judicial Officer who accepted Hotel Booking from 'stranger'

 

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the suspension order of a Judicial Order who was accused of having accepted a 'hotel booking' from an unknown person for allegedly taking a trip abroad.

A Division-Judge Bench of Justice Manmohan Singh and Justice Saurabh Banerjee without going into the merits of the case, remarked that it was 'unbecoming of a Judicial Officer', especially whence he is officiating as such.

"The post of a Judicial Officer is a coveted one with responsibilities attached to it. A Judicial Officer is expected to be unceremonious and not take things in an easy manner. A Judicial Officer is expected to be more prudent. At the end of the day “A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged”," the Court noted.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a Judicial Officer with the Delhi Higher Judiciary Service, clearing the Delhi Judicial Service joined in 2003 and thereafter while serving as a Judicial Officer, in February 2016, after applying and getting the requisite permission for travelling abroad along with his family members comprising his own self, his wife and their minor child and his younger brother, his wife and their two minor children, proceeded thereto. Upon return in June 2016, he submitted documents to the High Court. Noticing few discrepancies qua the Hotel bookings abroad made by an unknown person, the High Court called for explanation from the petitioner, which led to exchange of letters inter-se them. Being unsatisfied, the High Court issued a Memorandum containing the „Statement of Article of Charge‟. 

This led to the appointment of the learned Inquiry Officer3 and the proceedings before it. Initially, both petitioner and High Court gave their respective list of witnesses comprising four names each before the Officer, however, the petitioner declined to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the High Court. Instead, the petitioner later filed an application midway, after the examination-in-chief of two witnesses (including that of his own) already stood recorded and the proceedings were fixed at the stage of cross-examination, for producing two additional witnesses. As names of the said two witnesses, found no mention in the Statement of Defence filed by the petitioner twice, and as he could not be permitted to improve his defence, only one name was allowed to be included in the list of witnesses as according to the petitioner, the said witness had made the payments for Hotel bookings abroad.

Thereafter, an inquiry report was filed and subsequently Full Court of the High Court passed the dismissal order. 

Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended, inter-alia that there was „confirmation bias‟ against the petitioner since though the earlier unamended Article of Charge noted that though the Hotel bookings abroad were made by a friend/ client of the younger brother of the petitioner and paid for by a „stranger‟, however, the said name of the friend/ client was removed in the amended Article of Charge as if to mean that the payment was directly made by a „stranger‟ instead.

 

He further contended that there was no malafide on the part of petitioner as he did not withhold information about the said payments being made by a „stranger‟ and further that the petitioner had also informed that he owed monies to the friend/ client of his younger brother on account of the Hotel bookings abroad and that the „stranger‟ was a friend of the friend/ client of his younger brother.

It was also contended that the petitioner had offered money in lieu of the said Hotel bookings abroad before leaving for the trip abroad to the friend/ client of his younger brother, who in turn assured him that he would accept the money only upon return. Pertinently, learned Senior counsel, in the midst of arguments, admitted that though the bookings abroad were to be made for a „guest house‟, they were instead made for a Hotel, however, the same was strangely not questioned as no objection was raised by the petitioner or anyone on his behalf.

According to learned Senior counsel, the friend/ client of his younger brother refused to accept any money for the Hotel bookings despite repeated requests, even after returning from the trip abroad as it was a friendly gesture from his side in view of the long-lasting relationships, more so, as the wife and younger brother of the petitioner were „connected‟ with a legal firm run by a collegemate of the petitioner, who were doing his cases pro bono for the past few years.

 It was averred that case of the petitioner was not covered in paragraph 10 of the “Restatement of values of Judicial Life” as the money was paid by a friend who was a friend/ client of his younger brother and thence relying upon the “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, 2002”. It was thus contended that as the petitioner had not accepted a favour for discharge of his duties and it was not a case of quid-pro-quo and even otherwise the „stranger‟ was residing in Singapore and there was no situation in which the petitioner could oblige him. Also, in any event the petitioner had paid his proportion of share of the trip abroad, he submitted.

Reliance was placed on M.V.S Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors [2006] Insc 188 (5 April 2006), Sadhna Chaudhary vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH to contend that mere suspicion cannot act as proof, however, they being irrelevant for the purpose of present petition are not being considered.

On the other hand, learned counsel for High Court mainly contended that the petitioner never disclosed the name of the „stranger‟ in any of his letters and never gave any explanation qua him and that his name was only visible in the documents annexed along with the letter dated 02.08.2016 submitted by him, though the text of the letter never mentioned his name. It was then contended that the above was despite the fact that the petitioner was well aware of the name/ details of the „stranger‟ who made the payments of the Hotel bookings abroad beforehand itself. It was also contended that the relationship of the petitioner, his younger brother and wife, both of whom were working with the law firm of his collegemate, and the friend/ client of his younger brother and the „stranger‟ casts a shadow of doubt and they are all connected. It was also contended that things do not add up and there are too many unsolved riddles as neither the friend/ client of the younger brother of the petitioner nor the „stranger‟ were in any manner connected with the tourism industry and further as the same bookings could have been made by anyone, including the petitioner himself, online. In any event, as per the own admission of petitioner, the payment for the Hotel bookings abroad were made by a „stranger‟ who, at best, was connected with a friend of his younger brother and who in turn was a friend/ client with his collegemate with whom his wife and younger brother were connected.

 Reliance was placed on STATE OF BIHAR vs. Phulpari Kumari and other cases to contend that the present petition should not be entertained as the same does not call for any interference.

High Court's Observation

At the outset, the court noted that with the present petition, the petitioner is essentially seeking a judicial review of all the impugned Orders and therefore, the court will see whether the enshrined principles of natural justice have been followed by the Officer and/ or has there been any violation of the procedure or conduct followed by the Officer and/ or has the evidence on record been gone/ looked into by the Officer.

 

It thus framed the question as to whether the report and finding(s) therein by the Officer are based on preponderance of probabilities, for which, needless to mention, no actual instance is required for holding anyone guilty.

It inferred from the material placed on record and submissions made, that the petitioner has neither challenged the appointment/ constitution of the Officer nor questioned the manner of the proceedings conducted by the Officer nor raised any doubts about the decision-making process followed by the Officer and that the Officer has all throughout followed the enshrined principles of natural justice at all stages and has noted and considered all materials/ documents including the deposition of all the witnesses.

The Court ruled that there was a preponderance of probabilities that led the Officer to hold the petitioner guilty of the Articles of Charge and grant him punishment commensurate thereto.

 

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was found lacking in giving a material response to the repeated queries put by the High Court since the very inception. There are too many negatives which, unfortunately, do not add up to make a positive, the court stated.

-Firstly, the petitioner, admittedly, asked for bookings abroad for a „guest house‟ and instead the bookings were done in „four/ five-star hotels‟. Strangely, despite him being aware of the same before the trip abroad, admittedly, it was never questioned by the petitioner.

-Secondly, although it was the case of petitioner that his younger brother had arranged for the Hotel bookings abroad through his friend/ client but in the letter dated 02.08.2016 given by the petitioner to High Court in lieu of the procedure of proving details to High Court regarding the expenditure of the trip abroad, admittedly, the petitioner did not disclose the name of the „stranger‟ or the details of exact amount owed to him, albeit only filed an annexure which contained his name and the amount.

-Thirdly, though the petitioner filed Statement of Defence twice before the Officer, but on neither occasion did the name of the „stranger‟ crop up. Not only that, the said name of the „stranger‟ was also not included in the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner before the Officer initially, however, his name was included later only after the examination-in-chief of two witnesses (including that of the petitioner himself) had already stood recorded and it was at the cross-examination stage.

-Fourthly, despite the petitioner being well aware before departure for the abroad trip that a rank outsider, who was a complete stranger, had made payments for the Hotel bookings of the petitioner and his family members, strangely he kept sitting on the fence and did nothing.

-Fifthly, the friend/ client of the younger brother of petitioner actually happened to be a client of an old collegemate of the petitioner himself, who was running a law firm, dealing with the cases of the friend/ client and with whom both the wife of petitioner and the younger brother of petitioner were working, or we would say, loosely associated with (as the position is not clear despite our repeated queries). Interestingly, the wife of the petitioner was not in active litigation till a few years back as she was working in different companies/ firms and had joined only after delivering a child and similarly the younger brother of the petitioner was only enrolled as an Advocate after a few months of his return with the petitioner from abroad in June 2016.

-Sixthly, although the petitioner had all throughout maintained that he was unable to make the payment to the friend/ client of his younger brother as he refused to accept the same, who very well knew the consequences thereof and also the „stranger‟ as he was unaware of his whereabouts or his banking details, he has eventually, as we are told during the course of arguments, paid the sum after passing of the impugned orders.

The Court concluded that there is a chain reaction qua the payment and thus, as per learned Senior counsel for petitioner, though the petitioner was aware of the source but he was helpless to repay the same as he was unaware to whom it was to be paid to.

"Irrespective of the above, admittedly, the payment for the Hotel bookings were made by a „stranger‟ whose name/ details could have been made available by the petitioner even before advancing for the trip abroad is not in doubt here were no compelling circumstances of not doing so. It is only now that the petitioner has since made the payment. Further, the relationship of the petitioner, his wife and his younger brother and friend/ client and the „stranger‟ is unclear. Also, strangely no online Hotel bookings were done by the petitioner or anyone from his side, even though his younger brother all throughout belonged to the IT industry."

 

Noting that the petitioner has failed to establish the petitioner has failed to establish his case/ defence either before the Inquiry Officer or before Court.

"There was an acceptance from a „stranger‟ is admitted and that it is not reasonably explained, is sufficient for the petitioner to be held guilty. Such acceptance can be in any form and need not always be quid pro quo and/or direct. Unfortunately, the present petition neither inspires confidence nor appeals to reason. Paragraph 10 of the “Restatement of values of Judicial Life” has been rightly applied by the Officer," the Court ruled.

CASE TITLE: NAVEEN ARORA vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR

CASE DETAILS: W.P.(C) 7391/2022

CORAM: Justice Manmohan Singh and Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Rajesh Sachdeva, Ms.Shobha Gupta, Mr. Vineet Budhiraja, Mr. Vivek Singh and Mr. Apurva, Advocates.

Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. Aditi Shastri, Advocates

 Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

 Social media is you.

 (With input from news agency language)

  If you like this story, share it with a friend!   
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .