Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Tehsil And District Jammu vs Hon’Ble High Court Of J&K And Ladakh on 31 July, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
ATJAMMU
WP(C) No. 2510/2022
CM No. 6864/2022
Reserved on:15.05.2026
Pronounced on: 31.07.2026
Uploaded on: 31.07.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: FULL
Naveen Jamwal, Age-43 years,
S/o Nanak Chand Jamwal,
R/o Lower Thather,
Raipur Domana,
Tehsil and District Jammu ...Petitioner(s)
Through: - Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate.
v/s
1. Hon'ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh ...Respondent(s)
Through Registrar General,
High Court of J&K and Ladakh, Jammu.
2. Union Territory of J&K, through
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government,
Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs, (Judicial Administration Section),
Government of Union Territory of J&K, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu.
3. Secretary to Government,
Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs, (Judicial Administration Section),
Government of Union Territory of J&K, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu.
Through: - Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. Advocate (Sr. AAG) for
respondent Nos.2 & 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Parihar-J
1. The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, was selected by the Jammu and
Kashmir Public Service Commission and appointed as Civil Judge (Junior
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
Division)/Munsiff on 16.03.2013. His first posting was as
Munsiff/Additional Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Doda, 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
₹2.50 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 complainants alleged that they paid the
amounts demanded but neither secured employment nor received refund.
Instead, the petitioner allegedly abused and threatened them. It is further
alleged that, even after his transfer from Doda, the complainants
repeatedly approached him for return of their money, but he refused to
acknowledge them and, on one occasion, drove them away from his
residence with a threat of having them arrested.
2. Respondents claim to have received a written complaint against the
petitioner, on its administrative side, which provided as under: –
“Hon‟ble Chief Justice,
J&K High Court,
Jammu
Camp DodaSub: – Loot and extraction committed by Sh. Naveen Singh
Jamwal, the then Addl. Spl. Mobile Magistrate, Doda
Sir,
We the below signatory applicants are unemployed
graduate for Rural areas of this District and ever in search of
employment/livelihood.
To take benefit of our ambitions, we were defrauded by a
person named Sh. Naveen Singh Jamwal who was posted as Addl.
Spl. Mobile Magistrate Doda in year 2015.
He lured us to arrange for Rs.2,50,000/- each as he had as
per his statement ensured our employment in Judicial Department
and the same amount was to be paid to some High Court JudgePage 2 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DBand other members of selecting committee for Class IV
Employees appointment.
After his transfer from this place, we remain intact with
him at least to receive the amount back but last time when we
visited his home at Domana Jammu near Police Station, he abused
and got us out of his home stating that now nobody is going to
listen us.
We have the proof of payments which will be produced to
any officer appointed by your honour to enquire the matter.
An affidavit in support of application in annexed herewith.
Thanking you sir.
APPLICANTS
1. Chambail Singh
S/o Late Fareb Singh
R/o village Koti
Tehsil &Dist. Doda
2. Rattan Singh
S/o Kanshi Ram
R/o Dashan
Tehsil &Dist. Doda
3. Ranjeet Singh
S/o Kirpa Singh
R/o ZartundDessa
Tehsil Bhagwah
Dist. Doda”.
3. Upon receipt of the complaint, this Court directed the Registrar Vigilance
to conduct a preliminary inquiry. The inquiry 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. The Registrar Vigilance,
accordingly, recommended a regular departmental inquiry.
4. Pursuant to the Full Court Resolution dated 27.12.2018, a regular inquiry
was entrusted to a Judge of this Court. The Enquiry Officer, vide report
dated 24.08.2021, found all the charges proved and held the petitioner
guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. The report
was placed before the Full Court, which accepted the findings and
resolved to propose the major penalty of dismissal from service.
Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 15.12.2021 was issued, calling
Page 3 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
upon the petitioner to explain, within fifteen days, why the proposed
penalty should not be imposed. In compliance with Rule 33 of the Jammu
and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1956, copies of the inquiry report and the proceedings were also
furnished. According to the respondents, the notice was served upon the
petitioner on 17.12.2021 in the presence of the Registrar Vigilance and
two Registry officers. However, no reply was submitted.
5. Thereafter, on the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, a reminder-
cum-second show-cause notice granting seven days’ time was issued,
which, according to the respondents, was served upon the petitioner’s
spouse. As no response was received, the matter was again placed before
the Full Court, which, by resolution dated 12.04.2022, resolved to impose
the penalty of removal from service. The recommendation was accepted
by the Government, which issued Government Order No. 2704-JK(LD) of
2022 dated 20.05.2022 removing the petitioner from service.
6. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition,
principally contending that neither the impugned order nor any charge-
sheet or show-cause notice was ever served upon him and that he
remained unaware of the disciplinary proceedings until he accessed the
Government order from the website of the Law Department. It is pleaded
that no inquiry, as contemplated under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1956, was
conducted and that, had such proceedings been initiated, he would
ordinarily have been placed under suspension, whereas he continued to
draw his salary throughout. The petitioner further asserts that the
disciplinary proceedings were conducted entirely ex parte, in violation of
Rule 33, the principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the
Page 4 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
Constitution of India. The impugned order is also assailed on the grounds
of non-application of mind, arbitrariness and disproportionality of
punishment. On these premises, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of
certiorari quashing Government Order No. 2704-JK(LD) of 2022 dated
20.05.2022, the disciplinary proceedings culminating therein, and a
consequential direction for his reinstatement in service.
7. The respondents contend that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted
strictly in accordance with Rules 33 and 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, and that
all notices, including the show-cause notices, were duly served upon the
petitioner. It is pleaded that, despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner
deliberately abstained from participating in the inquiry, failed to file reply
to the charge-sheet, and chose not to contest the allegations.
Consequently, the Enquiry Officer was constrained to proceed ex parte.
According to the respondents, notices requiring the petitioner’s
appearance were duly served through the Principal District Judge,
Kulgam, where the petitioner was then posted, including notice dated
18.09.2019. Even after the Full Court accepted the findings of the Enquiry
Officer and resolved to propose the major penalty, two separate show-
cause notices under Rule 34 were served upon the petitioner, calling upon
him to explain why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. As
no response was forthcoming, the Full Court ultimately resolved to
impose the penalty of removal from service.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the
petitioner remained in active service throughout the relevant period and,
Page 5 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
therefore, the allegation that he intentionally abstained from the
proceedings is wholly unfounded. It is contended that neither the charge-
sheet nor the notices relating to the inquiry or the proposed punishment
were ever duly served upon him. On merits, it is argued that the complaint
was unsupported by the mandatory material contemplated under Section
204(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that although the complaint
was lodged on 31.03.2018, the compact disc (CD) relied upon was
produced only on 25.07.2018 without the certificate required under
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act; that there was no evidence of
demand, acceptance or recovery of any money; and that the recorded
conversation was never subjected to forensic examination. It is further
submitted that, despite the inquiry having proceeded ex parte, the Enquiry
Officer returned findings amounting to criminal misconduct without any
legally admissible evidence. Reliance is also placed on the fact that,
during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was
considered for promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil
Judge (Senior Division) pursuant to notification dated 19.11.2021,
wherein his name appeared at Serial No. 23, and his Annual Confidential
Reports had been consistently graded as ‘Good’, indicating that there was
no adverse material against him. It is further argued that the complainants’
assertion of having submitted the complaint to the then Acting Chief
Justice during his alleged visit to Doda on 31.03.2018 is factually
incorrect, as no such visit had taken place. Lastly, it is contended that the
disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by non-compliance with the
prescribed procedure, inasmuch as the charges were framed nearly one
and a half years after the complaint, contrary to Rule 31 of the Rules of
Page 6 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
1956, and the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner
an effective opportunity of hearing.
9. We have heard Counsel for both parties besides also have seen the record.
10. The original record produced by the respondent reveals that the complaint
was accompanied by an affidavit sworn by one of the complainants,
Chambail Singh. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Registrar Vigilance
was directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry. During the inquiry, all
three complainants appeared and their statements were recorded. One of
them also produced a Compact Disc (CD), asserting that it contained a
recorded conversation between complainant Ranjeet Singh and the
delinquent Judicial Officer (petitioner).
11. In his report dated 14.09.2018, the Registrar Vigilance noted that the CD,
when played, disclosed a conversation between Ranjeet Singh and another
person, who, though not expressly identified, appeared to be posted at
Mahore at the relevant time. The conversation reflected a demand by
Ranjeet Singh for return of the money allegedly paid by him, to which the
other person responded that he was entitled to receive ₹30,000-32,000/-.
The Registrar Vigilance further recorded that all three complainants had
consistently alleged payment of ₹2.50 lakh each to the petitioner on the
assurance of securing employment in the Judicial Department, but neither
were they appointed nor was the money returned. On the basis of the
complainants’ statements and the contents of the CD, the Registrar
Vigilance concluded that the allegations prima facie disclosed grave
Page 7 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
misconduct on the part of the petitioner and recommended initiation of a
regular departmental inquiry.
12. The report was placed before the Administrative Committee on
16.10.2018, which resolved to place the matter before the Full Court. By
resolution dated 27.12.2018, the Full Court ordered a regular inquiry and
authorised Hon’ble the Chief Justice to nominate an Enquiry Officer.
Accordingly, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar was appointed as the
Enquiry Officer with Reg. Vigilance being presenting officer.
13. The inquiry commenced on 20.08.2019, when notice was issued directing
the petitioner to appear on 13.09.2019. As the petitioner did not appear on
the scheduled date, the Enquiry Officer directed the Presenting Officer to
place on record proof of service and ordered issuance of a fresh notice
requiring the petitioner’s appearance on 17.10.2019. The record shows
that the said notice was served through the Principal District Judge,
Kulgam and was acknowledged by the petitioner on 18.09.2019. The
notice specifically informed the petitioner that, in the event of his failure
to appear, the inquiry would proceed ex parte. Despite such service, the
petitioner remained absent on 17.10.2019, whereupon the Enquiry Officer
proceeded ex parte and recorded the evidence adduced by the Presenting
Officer.
14. During the enquiry, the statement of Article charges was drawn against
the petitioner (Annexure-II of the Regular enquiry by the Enquiry Officer)
as under: –
Page 8 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
“Statement of allegations in support of Article of Charges
framed against Shri Naveen Jamwal (the then Addl. Spl.
Mobile Magistrate, Doda) presently posted as Munsiff
Mahore: –
1. That while being posted as Munsiff/Addl. Spl. Mobile
Magistrate, Doda, you indulged in corruption and abuse
of your official position.
2. That in the year 2015, Class IV posts for District Doda in
the District Judiciary had been advertised and you held
out a promise to arrange the appointments for the
complainants namely Sh. Chambail Singh, Sh. Ranjit
Singh and Sh. Rattan Singh, in lieu of the payment of
money which in turn was to be paid to the higher
authorities.
3. That in pursuance to the promise held out by you to the
complainants, the complainant Chambail Singh paid an
amount of Rs.1.00 lacs to you in your residential quarter
at Doda and a further sum of Rs.1.50 lacs was paid to
you by said complainant at your residence at Domana
after you had been transferred from Doda to Jammu.
4. That you also received an amount of Rs.2.50 lacs each
from complainants Sh. Ranjit Singh and Sh. Rattan
Singh in pursuance of the promise held out to them by
you.
5. That the complainants were not given the employment
and the money received by you was not returned by you
to them, as a consequence whereof, the complainants
made a written complaint before the Hon‟ble the Acting
Chief Justice on 31.03.2018.
6. That by your aforesaid omission and commission, you
have abused your official position and have resorted to
corrupt practices thereby indulging in a conduct
unbecoming of a Judicial Officer which calls for enquiry
under Rule 33 read with Rule 30 acts of the J&K Civil
Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1956. Apart from this, your acts constitute criminal
misconduct punishable under Section 5 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 2006″.
15. The same were served to the petitioner through Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Reasi asking him to submit his defence within 15 days.
On 24.08.2021, the Enquiry Officer returned its findings as under: –
“9. As the DO has failed to appear and lead any defence
evidence and has been set ex-parte, therefore, the enquiry
has to be completed only on the basis of the evidence of the
complainants and the record placed on the file.
10. Having heard the Presenting officer and perused the
material on record, I am of the considered view that the
charges against the D.O have been proved. The statements
of all the three witnesses are in sync with each other and
clearly demonstrate the culpability of the D.O. From thePage 9 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DBstatements of the witnesses it is established by
preponderance of all probabilities that in the year 2015,
when the D.O was posted as Munsiff/Addl. Mobile
Magistrate Traffic, Doda, he came in contact with the
complainants, Chambail Singh, Rattan Singh and Ranjit
Singh on different occasions and on the promise of
arranging Class IV job in Judiciary in District Doda,
demanded and received different sums on different
occasions. It was only when the select list of Class IV came
to be issued, the complainants came to know that they had
been duped. They approached the D.O for refund of their
money. The D.O refused to recognize them and refund their
money.
11. It may be noted that the conduct of the D.O during the
course of enquiry has remained as one of defiance. Not only
did he refuse to submit his reply to the charges but he
virtually declined to participate in the enquiry. The D.O was
served time and again with a direction to appear before the
undersigned but he, despite having acknowledged the
summons, remained absent. The conduct exhibited by the
D.O is sufficient enough to infer that the D.O had not
defence to offer and had conceded the charges. It is these
circumstances the D.O was proceeded ex-parte and the
Presenting officer was asked to lead evidence. All the three
complainants appeared before me and unequivocally
deposed against the D.O and supported the charges framed
against him. I have elaborately reproduced the statements of
the three complainants, which, as already stated, are in sync
with each other and fully prove the charges, more so, when
these had not been contested or rebutted.
12. In view of the aforesaid, I have no doubt in my mind that
the charges framed against the D.O are fully established and,
therefore, I hold him guilty of serious misconduct
unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.”
16. The Enquiry Report was thereafter placed before the Full Court on the
administrative side, which accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry
Officer and resolved to propose the major penalty of dismissal from
service. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued 2nd show-cause notice
calling upon him to explain why the proposed penalty should not be
imposed. Despite service of the notice, the petitioner did not submit any
response. The record further reveals that, on the directions of Hon’ble the
Chief Justice, one additional opportunity too was afforded to the
petitioner by issuance of a fresh show-cause notice, even then, no reply
Page 10 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
was forthcoming. Consequently, the Full Court, upon reconsideration of
the matter, resolved to recommend to the Government the petitioner’s
removal from service on account of the misconduct established in the
departmental inquiry.
17. 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. Its
application, however, must be understood in the backdrop of the
constitutional scheme, under which the District Judiciary remains under
the administrative control of the High Court. 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
18. In ‘Union of India and others Vs. K. K. Dhawan‘ AIR 1993 Supreme
Court 1478 while being seized of an issue regarding conduct of civil
Page 11 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
servant and the power of the government to take disciplinary action, it
was held:-
“28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or
quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to
confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge.
Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It
is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are not
concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the
respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his
duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the
nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the
Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not
precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the
Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can
be taken in the following cases:
(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on
his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or
misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a
government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed
conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory
powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive however, small the
bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago “though the bribe
may be small, yet the fault is great.”
19. Speaking with regard to the power of the High Court in matters of
disciplinary control over District judiciary, the Apex Court in ‘R. R.
Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat and Anr.’ reported in AIR 2016
Supreme Court 3356, laid down the procedure that has to be followed in
such matters. It is held as under: –
“13. The submission suffers from a fundamental fallacy.
Under Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court exercisesPage 12 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DBcontrol over the district judiciary. The exercise of disciplinary
control is a manifestation of that power. Exercise of disciplinary
control over the district judiciary is vested in the High Court in
pursuance of the provisions of Article 235. The High Court, in
order to streamline the process governing the exercise of its
disciplinary jurisdiction, may make-as High Courts in fact do
make-procedural provisions regulating its exercise. The High Court
of Gujarat in a meeting of a Full Court held on 2 March 2004
resolved that matters listed in annexure „A‟ to the resolution should
be dealt with and decided by the High Court as a whole. Action to
be taken against judicial officers in the exercise of disciplinary
jurisdiction was one of those matters. However, having due regard
to the multitude of administrative matters over which the Full Court
exercises jurisdiction, the High Court assigns and distributes its
administrative functions to constituent committees. This is
imperative for the efficient exercise of the control of the High Court
over the district judiciary under Article 235. Distribution of work to
a Committee of the High Court does not efface the jurisdiction that
vests in the High Court. By a resolution that was passed in a
Chamber meeting of the High Court held on 26 December 1998 a
detailed procedure was enunciated for the conduct of disciplinary
inquiries against judicial officers of the district judiciary. The
procedure envisages that after an Inquiry Officer submits a report,
the report together with underlying material on the record would be
examined by a Disciplinary Committee consisting of two judges.
The Disciplinary Committee would submit its provisional
conclusions in a report which would lay before the High Court and
this would become a decision of the Court after a stipulated period.
The second stage for the Disciplinary Committee to prepare and
submit its report would be after issuing a notice to show cause to
the officer and granting him a personal hearing after which the
Disciplinary Committee would prepare a report containing its
reasoned conclusions regarding the punishment. Once again the
report would be tabled before High Court and would become aPage 13 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DBdecision of the Court after passage of a stipulated period. The
recommendation which is submitted by the Disciplinary Committee
on whether or not to accept the Report of an Inquiry Officer is not
binding on the High Court. The Full Court has an obligation to
apply its mind to a report which has been submitted by the
Disciplinary Committee and to determine whether it should or
should not be accepted. Hence, there is no merit in the submission
that the Full Court was bound by the decision of its Disciplinary
Committee.”
20. In that case, the judicial officer had been accused of having passed certain
orders by allowing benefit of a set-off and orders had been passed with
oblique purpose. The Apex Court while commenting upon such
misconduct observed in para 15, the same is reproduced below: –
“15. The issue of whether a judicial officer has been actuated by an
oblique motive or corrupt practice has to be determined upon a
careful appraisal of the material on the record. Direct evidence of
corruption may not always be forthcoming in every case involving
a misconduct of this nature. A wanton breach of the governing
principles of law or procedure may well be indicative in a given
case of a motivated, if not reckless disregard of legal principle. In
the absence of a cogent explanation to the contrary, it is for the
disciplinary authority to determine whether a pattern has emerged
on the basis of which an inference that the judicial officer was
actuated by extraneous considerations can be drawn. Cases
involving misdemeanours of a judicial officer have to be dealt with
sensitivity and care. A robust common sense must guide the
disciplinary authority. At one end of the spectrum are those cases
where direct evidence of a misdemeanour is available. Evidence in
regard to the existence of an incriminating trail must be carefully
scrutinized to determine whether an act of misconduct is
established on the basis of legally acceptable evidence. Yet in other
cases, direct evidence of a decision being actuated by a corruptPage 14 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DBmotive may not be available. The issue which arises in such cases is
whether there are circumstances from which an inference that
extraneous considerations have actuated a judicial officer can
legitimately be drawn. Such an inference cannot obviously be
drawn merely from a hypothesis that a decision is erroneous. A
wrong decision can yet be a bona fide error of judgment.
Inadvertence is consistent with an honest error of judgment. A
charge of misconduct against a judicial officer must be
distinguished from a purely erroneous decision whether on law or
on fact. The legality of a judicial determination is subject to such
remedies as are provided in law for testing the correctness of the
determination. It is not the correctness of the verdict but the
conduct of the officer which is in question. The disciplinary
authority has to determine whether there has emerged from the
record one or more circumstances that indicate that the decision
which forms the basis of the charge of misconduct was not an
honest exercise of judicial power. The circumstances let into
evidence to establish misconduct have to be sifted and evaluated
with caution. The threat of disciplinary proceedings must not
demotivate the honest and independent officer. Yet on the other
hand, there is a vital element of accountability to society involved
in dealing with cases of misconduct. There is on the one hand a
genuine public interest in protecting fearless and honest officers of
the district judiciary from motivated criticism and attack. Equally
there is a genuine public interest in holding a person who is guilty
of wrong doing responsible for his or his actions. Neither aspect of
public interest can be ignored. Both are vital to the preservation of
the integrity of the administration of justice.”
21. The Court had found that the view taken by the High Court on charge of
misconduct was based on proper appreciation and in enquiry such
misconduct was duly established. However, the Apex Court found that the
Page 15 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
punishment of dismissal was harsh, it proceeded to substitute it by an
order of compulsory retirement.
22. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present case, the
principal contention of the petitioner is that he was denied, reasonable
opportunity of hearing. The original record, however, does not support
this assertion. The complaint (Exhibit-CS), submitted before a Judge of
this Court on 31.03.2018, 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.
23. The Registrar Vigilance conducted the preliminary inquiry by recording
the statements of all the complainants, who consistently reiterated the
allegations and also produced a Compact Disc (CD) containing a recorded
conversation between one of the complainants and the petitioner. Upon
considering the statements and the contents of the CD, the Registrar
Vigilance concluded that the allegations were prima facie substantiated
and disclosed grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner, warranting a
regular departmental inquiry. The report was accordingly placed before
the Full Court, which resolved to initiate regular disciplinary proceedings.
24. Pursuant thereto, the Enquiry Officer, by order dated 20.08.2019, directed
issuance of notice to the petitioner, then posted as Munsiff, Qazigund,
requiring his appearance on 13.09.2019. The record reveals that the notice
was served through the Principal District Judge, Kulgam and was
Page 16 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
acknowledged by the petitioner on 18.09.2019. The Principal District
Judge, Kulgam, by communication dated 25.09.2019, confirmed that
service had been duly effected. Despite service, the petitioner failed to
appear. Consequently, a fresh notice was directed to be issued, and the
Registrar Vigilance was further instructed to communicate the next date
of hearing to the petitioner through telephone, WhatsApp and e-mail.
Even thereafter, on 17.10.2019, the petitioner remained absent. The
Enquiry Officer, having recorded satisfaction that the petitioner had
deliberately chosen not to participate despite due service, proceeded to
conduct the inquiry ex parte.
25. The record further reveals that, even prior to commencement of the
regular inquiry, while the petitioner was posted as Munsiff, Mahore,
within the jurisdiction of the Principal District Judge, Reasi, a formal
charge-sheet, together with all annexures, had been served upon him
through the Process Server on 17.04.2019. He was required to submit his
written statement of defence on or before 02.05.2019. Admittedly, neither
any reply nor any request for extension of time was submitted.
26. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner was duly served both with the
charge-sheet and the notices issued during the regular inquiry. The record
further indicates that the direction issued by the Enquiry Officer for
communicating the dates of hearing through telephone, WhatsApp and e-
mail 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
Page 17 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
service or to show that he was deprived of an opportunity to participate in
the proceedings.
27. The evidence led before the Enquiry Officer consisted principally of the
statements of the three complainants. Rattan Singh deposed that he had
paid ₹2.50 lakh to the petitioner in two instalments, first at the Dak
Bungalow, Doda, and thereafter at the petitioner’s residence at Domana-
Jammu on the assurance of securing employment in the Judicial
Department. Upon publication of the select list, when he was not selected
and demanded refund of the money, the petitioner allegedly refused to
recognise him and threatened to have him arrested. He further stated that,
while visiting the petitioner’s residence, he found the other two
complainants, who had allegedly suffered a similar fate.
28. Ranjeet Singh likewise deposed that he had paid ₹2.50 lakh to the
petitioner for the same purpose. According to him, after the petitioner was
transferred to Mahore, he contacted him telephonically and later met him
at his residence at Domana. On one occasion, the petitioner allegedly
handed him a small amount towards travelling expenses but ultimately
declined to return the money. Chambail Singh also deposed that the
petitioner initially demanded ₹3 lakh for securing his appointment as a
Class-IV employee in the District Court, Doda, which was later reduced
to ₹2.50 lakh. He stated that the amount was paid in two instalments at the
petitioner’s official residence at Doda and thereafter at his residence at
Domana. When no appointment materialised and he sought refund of the
amount, the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with him and refused to
return the money.
Page 18 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
29. Significantly, the writ petition does not contain even a whisper that the
allegations levelled by the complainants are false, fabricated or actuated
by mala fides. The petitioner’s principal grievance is confined to the
assertion that the Enquiry Officer accepted the statements of the
complainants without subjecting them to cross-examination. This
contention is wholly untenable. The record unmistakably demonstrates
that the petitioner, despite due service and repeated opportunities, chose
not to participate in the departmental inquiry. Having voluntarily
abstained from the proceedings, he forfeited his right to cross-examine the
witnesses.
30. The complainants consistently reiterated, both before the Registrar
Vigilance and the Enquiry Officer, the allegations set out in the
complaint, namely, that the petitioner had induced each of them to pay
₹2.50 lakh on the assurance of securing appointments in the Judicial
Department; that no such appointments materialised; and that, when they
demanded refund of the money, the petitioner either refused to recognise
them or threatened them. In the absence of any rebuttal or cross-
examination by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer cannot be faulted for
placing reliance upon their uncontroverted testimony.
31. The record unmistakably demonstrates that the petitioner was duly served
with the memorandum of charges, notices issued during the disciplinary
proceedings, and the show-cause notices proposing the major penalty.
Repeated and adequate opportunities were afforded to him to submit his
defence, participate in the inquiry and cross-examine the witnesses. The
petitioner, however, consciously opted to remain absent throughout.
Page 19 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
Having deliberately abstained from the proceedings the petitioner who is a
judicial officer, cannot now invoke the principles of natural justice to
assail the inquiry. The rule of audi alteram partem protects a diligent
litigant; it cannot be converted into a weapon by one who, despite due
notice, chooses not to avail the opportunity afforded to him.
32. It was contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that CD
relied upon was not accompanied with certificate required under Section
65-B of the Evidence Act, therefore, the finding of the misconduct on the
part of the petitioner is erroneous in law.
33. We have examined the report of the Enquiry Officer and we find that
though the witnesses had identified the voice of the petitioner when the
compact disc (CD) was played before them during the course of
preliminary enquiry, but the Enquiry Officer has not at all relied upon the
said CD to determine the culpability of the petitioner. This contention is,
therefore, misconceived and same is rejected. The Enquiry Officer has
mainly relied upon the oral testimony of the witnesses and has determined
the culpability of the petitioner.
34. It was next contended that the Enquiry stood vitiated because it proceeded
ex parte. It is true that the Enquiry Officer proceeded against the
petitioner in ex parte, but that is because of the own conduct of the
petitioner who despite having been duly served not only with the charge-
sheet but all subsequent proceedings, has at his own peril, decided not to
participate in the enquiry proceedings and under such circumstances, the
Enquiry Officer had no option but to proceed against the petitioner.
Page 20 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
35. In „B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India& Others‘ reported in AIR 1996
SC 484, it was held:-
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review
of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial
review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment
and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is
necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is
conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the
Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was
held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are
complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on
some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold
inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of
fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some
evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof
of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary
proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and
conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is
entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.
The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as
appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its
own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the
delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of
inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the
disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached,
the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding,
and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each
case.”
Page 21 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
36. In „State of U.P. & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha‘ reported in (2010) 2
SCC 772, the Apex Court while dealing with the procedure relating to the
conduct of enquiry, held in paras 26, 27 & 28 as under:-
“26. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-Rule shows that when the respondent
had failed to submit the explanation to the charge sheet it was incumbent upon
the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a
case when the Government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to
appear that the enquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in
such circumstances it is incumbent on the enquiry officer to record the
statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. Since the Government
servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross examination of the
witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the department is
required to produce the necessary evidence before the enquiry officer. This is
so as to avoid the charge that the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as
well as a judge. Enquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the
position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a
representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His
function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the
absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence
is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the
aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken
into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the
respondents.
27. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of
natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an
employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding
which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee.
28. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it
cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased.
The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that
justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural
justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings
which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal
from service. In the case of Shaughnessy v. United States, 345 US 206 (1953)
(Jackson J), a judge of the United States Supreme Court has said “procedural
fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe
substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied.”
37. This was followed in Chairman-cum-MD., Coal India Limited & Ors.
v. Ananta Saha & Ors. reported in 2011 (5) SCC 142, para 23 of the
judgment reads as under: –
“23. In the instant case, proceedings were held ex-parte against the
delinquent as he failed to appear in spite of notice and such a course of the
inquiry officer was justified (See: State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIRPage 22 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB2010 SC 3131). There is no averment by the delinquent that he did not receive
the said notice and the copy of the inquiry report. The plea taken by the
delinquent shows that he has adopted a belligerent attitude and kept the
litigation alive for more than two decades merely on technical grounds. The
delinquent waited till the conclusion of the purported fresh enquiry initiated on
17.1.2002, even though he could have challenged the same having been
initiated by a person not competent to initiate the proceedings and being in
contravention of the orders passed by the High Court earlier. In such a fact-
situation, the High Court ought to have refused to entertain his writ petition.
More so, the writ petition could not have been proceeded with and heard on
merit when the statutory appeal was pending before the Board of Directors,
CIL. xxxxxxxxUnfortunately, both the parties proceeded with the case without any sense of
responsibility, as subsequent to disposal of the writ petition and appeal by the
High Court, the statutory appeal filed by the delinquent after 15 months of
imposition of punishment was entertained, though the limitation prescribed
under the Rules 1978 is only 30 days and appeal has been dismissed on merit
without dealing with the issue of limitation. It clearly shows that both sides
considered the litigation as a luxury and that the appellants have been wasting
public time and money without taking the matter seriously.”
38. The aforesaid principle was followed in Pravin Kumar v. Union of
India& Ors., reported in 2020 (9) SCC 471, observing as under:-
“25. Learned counsel for the appellant spent considerable time taking us through the
various evidences on record with the intention of highlighting lacunas and
contradictions. We feel that such an exercise was in vain, as the threshold of
interference in the present proceedings is quite high. The power of judicial review
discharged by Constitutional Courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal
under Article 136, is distinct from the appellate power exercised by a departmental
appellate authority. It would be gainsaid that judicial review is an evaluation of the
decision making process, and not the merits of the decision itself. Judicial Review
seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used
to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant
injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome.
28. It is thus well settled that the Constitutional Courts while exercising their powers
of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their
jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors
leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put
differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like
an appellate authority.”
39. The aforesaid exposition of law squarely negates the petitioner’s
contention. It clearly establishes that the petitioner was afforded adequate
and reasonable opportunities to participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
Having consciously chosen not to avail those opportunities, he cannot
now assail the inquiry on the ground that it proceeded ex parte.
Furthermore, the findings of the Inquiry Officer are supported by
Page 23 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
evidence on record and do not suffer from any legal infirmity, procedural
irregularity, or factual perversity warranting interference in the exercise of
judicial review.
40. The contention that the petitioner was not placed under suspension during
the pendency of the inquiry is equally devoid of substance. Suspension is
not a condition precedent either for initiation or continuation of
disciplinary proceedings. The decision whether or not to place a
delinquent employee under suspension lies within the domain of the
disciplinary authority and does not, by itself, affect the legality of the
inquiry or the punishment ultimately imposed.
41. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based upon evidence
adduced during the inquiry, including the consistent testimony of the
complainants, which remained wholly uncontroverted because of the
petitioner’s deliberate failure to participate. This Court cannot ignore that
the writ petition does not contain any categorical plea that the allegations
levelled by the complainants were false, fabricated or actuated by mala
fides. The challenge is founded almost exclusively on alleged procedural
irregularities, which, upon scrutiny of the original record, are found to be
non-existent.
42. It is equally well settled that, while exercising the power of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not sit as an
appellate authority over disciplinary proceedings. The Court is concerned
with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Re-
appreciation of evidence or substitution of the Court’s own conclusions
Page 24 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
for those arrived at by the disciplinary authority is wholly impermissible
unless the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence,
vitiated by mala fides, or rendered in flagrant violation of statutory
provisions or the principles of natural justice. None of these contingencies
arise in the present case.
43. 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.
44. Having examined the entire record, this Court finds that the disciplinary
proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the Jammu and
Kashmir Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956;
the petitioner was afforded more than adequate opportunity to defend
himself; the findings of guilt are supported by evidence; and the
recommendation of the Full Court, culminating in Government Order No.
2704-JK(LD) of 2022 dated 20.05.2022, suffers from neither procedural
infirmity nor legal perversity. The penalty imposed cannot, in the facts
Page 25 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2370-DB
and circumstances of the case, be said to be disproportionate so as to
warrant interference.
45. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
The impugned Government Order No.2704-JK(LD) of 2022 dated
20.05.2022 is upheld. Consequently, all connected applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Sanjay Parihar ) ( Rajnesh Oswal )
Judge Judge
JAMMU
31.07.2026
Narinder
Whether the order is speaking?: Yes
Whether the order is reportable?: Yes
Page 26 of 26 WP(C) No. 2510/2022 CM No. 6864/2022
