LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

ticket less journy of a magistrate - all are equal before law? but it is just and necessary to provide aminities to the magistrate after seeing the plights of the officer instead of sending her out of office.


                                   1
                                                   REPORTABLE



               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6966 OF 2004


lARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR                   .... Appellant

 Versus

STATE
OF




MAHARASHTRA                        .... Respondent




                           JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1.   This appeal was filed by the appellant herein being aggrieved

by the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
                                   2
Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the

appellant herein.

2.   The issue that is sought to be raised in this appeal by the

appellant is 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 said

appellant-Magistrate was found travelling without ticket in a local

train thrice and on each occasion, the behaviour of the said

appellant-Magistrate with the Railway staff in asserting that the

Magistrates need not have a ticket was improper and constituted

grave misconduct.
                                     3
3.   The allegation against the appellant was that she had travelled

without tickets on 21.2.1997, 13.5.1997 and also on 5.12.1997

when she was caught.      The charges here not only related to such

incidents of ticketless travelling but also about misusing her official

identity card and for making unnecessary scene on the Railway

platform and giving threats to the Railway staff which was




considered to be misconduct unbecoming of a judicial officer as per

Rule 3(iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1979.

4.   In order to understand the gravity of the charges and since it

was the submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant that

she was not responsible for any travelling without tickets, we have

to narrate the background facts leading to the issuance of
                                   4
memorandum of charges against her.

5.     On 28.5.1992, the appellant was appointed as a Metropolitan

Magistrate at Bombay.       Allegations were made by the Railway

officials against the appellant for three incidents that happened on

21.2.1997, 13.5.1997 and on 5.12.1997.      While the appellant on

5.12.1997 boarded the train at Mulund, she was accosted by two

ticket

collectors

during

the

course of

her

journey

from

Mulund

to Dadar who asked her to produce ticket or her pass.           The

appellant, however, stated that she had given her orderly money to

buy a season pass which would be produced at the Dadar Railway

Station. Even at Dadar Railway Station, she could not produce any

ticket for her travel between the stations i.e. from Mulund to Dadar
                                    5
when she was asked to pay the Railway fare and fine for having

travelled without ticket from Mulund to Dadar. However, another

Metropolitan Magistrate travelling by the next train reached the

Dadar Station and on being informed about the plight of the

appellant, he came to the    Station Superintendent    and   handed

over to the appellant Rs. 102/- which was paid by the appellant

to       the

railway

officers

against a

receipt.

Even

prior      to

the     said

date,      it

was alleged that the appellant travelled without tickets on two dates

i.e. 21.2.1997 and 13.5.1997.

6.      On receipt of the aforesaid allegations made against the

appellant by the Railway officers, a preliminary inquiry was held, on

completion of which a Report was submitted on 25.3.1998 holding
                                     6
that the incidents of ticketless travelling by the appellant on the

aforesaid three dates had been established against the appellant.

7.   Consequent thereto, a Memorandum of Charges was framed

against the appellant and the same was issued on 17.12.1998.

There were two specific articles of charges framed against the

appellant which were to the following effect:-




          1. The petitioner claimed that the Magistrates are not
                required to buy ticket or pass and are allowed to
                travel in any local train, in first class without any
                travel authority for the purpose of attending duties.
          2. The petitioner was caught thrice for travelling in first
             class compartment of local train without ticket / travel
             authority and when caught the petitioner entered into
             arguments with ticket checking staff and on
             05.12.1997 at about 10:30 to 11 a.m., created a scene
             and threatened the ticket collectors at Dadar railway
             station when the authorities insisted that the
             petitioner pay the necessary charges for travelling
                                    7
              without ticket.

8.    Alongwith the aforesaid Memorandum of Charges, the articles

of charges with the statement of imputation of misconduct with list

of charges alongwith list of witnesses were forwarded to the

appellant.

9.    The aforesaid disciplinary proceeding of the appellant was held

alongwith

two other




Metropolitan Magistrates namely Mrs. Rama Waghule and Mr. V.V.

Phand.      Since we are not concerned with the charges framed

against the other two officers, we refrain from referring to the same

in the present case.

10.   After receipt of the aforesaid Memorandum of Charges, the

appellant sent her reply taking up a definite stand that the alleged
                                     8
incident of ticketless travelling on 21.2.1997 was deliberately

concocted and imaginary whereas regarding the remaining two

incidents of ticketless travelling, it was stated by her that the same

were due to unavoidable circumstances as set out more particularly

in the said reply.

11.     The disciplinary authority having not been satisfied with the

reply

submitted

by       the

appellant

ordered

for




conducting an inquiry against the appellant and appointed the

inquiry officer for holding a departmental inquiry against the

appellant with reference to the charges levelled against her.    After

conducting a detailed       inquiry and examining a number          of

witnesses, the inquiry officer on 28.10.1999 submitted his report

stating that the charges alleged against the appellant are proved.
                                   9
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 aforesaid Report submitted by the Inquiry

Officer was considered by the disciplinary authority consisting of

the Chief Justice and Judges of the Bombay High Court and it was

decided to

issue      a

notice    to

the

appellant

to    show

cause.




Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant

asking her to explain as to why the findings recorded by the inquiry

officer would not be accepted and why a major penalty including a

penalty of dismissal from service would not be imposed on the

appellant.

12.     The appellant submitted an application on 24.01.2000,
                                       10
pleading that she may be permitted to examine herself and three

independent witnesses as and by way of additional evidence.            The

said    application   was,   however,    rejected   by   the   disciplinary

authority, but the High Court extended the time for filing the reply

pursuant to which she submitted her reply to the show cause notice

on 9.3.2000.     After receipt of the aforesaid reply, 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 on 27.9.2000.

13.    Being aggrieved by the order passed, the appellant filed a writ
                                    11
petition in the High Court challenging the legality and validity of the

aforesaid order of compulsory retirement from the service.

14.      The Division Bench of the High Court, as stated earlier

dismissed the writ petition as against which the present appeal was

filed.     When the matter was listed, we heard the learned counsel

appearing for the parties at length and also perused the records and




scrutinised the same very minutely in order to arrive at a categorical

finding regarding the guilt of the appellant. Before dwelling further

it will be useful to examine few relevant facts of the present case.

There are three incidents on the basis of which charges of

misconduct against the appellant were framed. The said incidents

were on 21.2.1997, 13.5.1997 and 5.12.1997.            So far as the
                                    12
incident of ticketless travelling on 21.2.1997 is concerned, it is the

case of the Railway as also of the Disciplinary Authority that she

had travelled without ticket on the said date and when she was

accosted to show her pass or ticket, she simply passed her identity

card to the hands of the ticket collector and went away before she

could be caught physically. The aforesaid identity card of the

appellant

was

however,

returned

to her on

24.2.1997

by      the

Railway

officials.

The aforesaid incident was made a charge against which she had

taken a categorical defence that she had lost her official identity

card and on receiving information that the same was found at the

Dadar Railway Station, she got it collected through a Constable

from the Railway authorities on 24.2.1997.    Her specific case in the
                                    13
departmental proceeding against the said charge was that she had

never travelled by train on 21.2.1997.

15.    So far as the said defence is concerned, the High Court found

the same to be without any basis particularly in view of the fact that

if the appellant was travelling as stated by her in a car during the

month of February, 1997, there was no reason why her official

identity

card

could      be

found and

traced     at

Dadar

Railway

Station.

It       was

also held that she was the best person to give some idea as to how

she lost her identity card at the Dadar Railway Station.   It was also

held that since no evidence was led by the appellant on that behalf

and since also the Constable who had allegedly collected the

identity card from the Railway authorities on 24.2.1997 had not
                                     14
been examined by her to establish her defence, the aforesaid

defence taken by the appellant was not accepted by the High Court

and it was held that the said charge of ticketless travelling on

21.2.1997 is proved in the facts and circumstances of the present

case.

16.     We find no reason to take a different view from the aforesaid

findings

recorded

by       the

High

Court.

The

specific

stand      of

the

Railway and also of the departmental authority in the inquiry is that

the appellant when accosted for her ticketless travelling, she simply

passed her identity card to the hands of the ticket collector and

went away and giving no opportunity to the ticket collector to detain

her.     If it was her case that she lost her identity card, it was
                                     15
required for her to immediately lodge a complaint thereto with the

concerned authority or with the police which she never did.        The

said identity card was in fact returned to her by the Railway officials

on 24.2.1997.      We could not find any justifiable reason of the

identity card being recovered at the Dadar Railway Station if she

had not at all travelled by train on that day.

17.

There

could   be

no    other




conclusions than what is arrived at by the High Court that she had

indeed travelled on that day without any ticket and when accosted,

she simply passed the identity card to the hands of the ticket

collector and walked away from the place.

18.   So far as the incident of 13.5.1997 is concerned, the specific

defence of the appellant is that she had purchased a first class
                                   16
ticket on 13.5.1997 but the same was lost while boarding the train

which was not accepted by the High Court holding the same to be

highly improbable as she had voluntarily paid the charges after

stating that Magistrates travelling without ticket could not be asked

to pay the fine. Fact remains that on 13.5.1997 also the appellant

could not produce any valid ticket or pass when she was accosted

and

asked     to

produce

her   valid




ticket/pass. The defence that she lost ticket while boarding the

train could always be taken by anybody, but in our concerned view,

there must be some basic facts supporting such statement which

could not be produced by the appellant in the instant case.

19.   So far as the incident on 5.12.1997 is concerned, we find that

there is no dispute with regard to the fact that on that particular
                                   17
day, she boarded a first class compartment at Mulund Station

although she did not have a valid ticket/pass in her possession.

She had paid a penalty which was given to her by one of her

colleagues.    Later on she had taken a stand that she had

purchased a season ticket but the said ticket was also found to

have been purchased at Dadar station.

20.   On




5.12.1997, when the appellant was caught without ticket and when

she was asked to produce the ticket, she could not do so nor was

she prepared to pay the charges on the ground that she was a

Magistrate and therefore has a right to travel without ticket. It is

established from the record that subsequently, however, she paid

the amount of Rs. 102/-
                                      18
21.   In this connection, we may also refer to a letter written by her

on 8.12.1997 to the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai.

The said letter was admittedly written by her and it reads as

follows:-

      "I would like to mention to you that sometimes, I am required
      to enter into your local Trains to reach my Court in time, as the
      vehicle given to us is a pooling one which takes a very long
      time due to unexpected traffic on the roads or break downs.




      During such occasions, I am unable to buy tickets because of
      short of time and consequently it had happened so, that I had
      to face your nagging ticket collectors.       Your lady ticket
      collectors at Dadar instead of understanding our difficulties
      have further harassed us in the most insulting manner and
      this has left a deed scar in our mind. If you care to know how
      nasty your people could be, you may depute a representative
      to whom we can explain the facts.
      I am aware that the Metropolitan Magistrates handling the
      matters of any railway police station on central line get first
      class free pass right from Nagpur to Igapturi. Even the staff
      attached to such Magistrates also get free passes. We also
                                      19
      attend to the work of railways on Saturdays, Sundays and
      holidays. Are we therefore, not entitled, at least to stand in
      the first class compartments of local trains only for the
      purpose of reaching our Courts in time during such
      emergencies ? Please do the needful in this matter urgently
      by giving necessary instructions to the ticket collectors so that
      we are not humiliated by your ticket collectors on this count
      and made to pay fine.
      If you are of the negative opinion, that even this little courtesy
      cannot be extended to us, please communicate to me, so that I
      am prepared for such eventualities.        Your early response
      would be highly appreciated."




22.   The aforesaid letter as also the fact that she could not produce

any ticket or pass for her travel between Mulund and Dadar station

clearly establishes the fact that on 5.12.1997, she had travelled

without ticket.

23.   Despite the aforesaid position, she had written a letter to the

General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai clearly stating that at
                                    20
times she is unable to buy tickets because of shortage of time for

which she had been harassed by the ticket collectors, therefore, she

should be provided a free passage in a First Class compartment of

local trains for the purpose of reaching the courts in time during

such emergencies.

24.    A letter written immediately after the incident on 5.12.1997

clearly

indicates

that      she

had

travelled

without

ticket    on

5.12.1997

and       she

had taken offence for demanding a ticket from her as she is a

Magistrate and she had made complaint against the ticket

collectors.     The offence as alleged against the appellant in the

memo of charges therefore for 5.12.1997 is established on her own

showing and therefore, the inquiry officer was justified in coming to
                                      21
the conclusion that the charges levelled against her stood proved.

25.     The next question that is posed before us is whether the

inquiry officer was justified in recommending punishment to the

appellant.

26.     We have looked into the aforesaid issue also in the light of the

provisions of the Rules.      Rule 8(25)(e) of the Rules provided and

permitted

an

inquiry

officer    to




recommend for the punishment to be provided in the facts of the

case.     That provision which found place in the earlier Rules,

however, came to be deleted from the aforesaid Rules by the

amendment brought in the Rules in the year 1997. In that context,

it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

that since a recommendation has been made by the inquiry officer
                                     22
regarding punishment, the entire findings are vitiated and therefore

liable to be set aside and quashed.

27.   We are, however, unable to accept the aforesaid submissions.

On going through the records, we find that the disciplinary

authority considered the records and thereafter came to an

independent finding that the appellant is guilty of the charges

framed

against

her       of




misconduct and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a

major penalty like compulsory retirement from service could only be

imposed on her and consequently such a punishment was decided

to be imposed.     Finally, the entire disciplinary proceedings got

terminated with the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement.

28.   It was also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
                                      23
appellant     that   the   aforesaid        punishment   awarded   is

disproportionate to the charges levelled against her and that she

should at least 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 by the learned counsel for the appellant 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

by

addition of another 10 years of service.

29.   We are, however, unable to accept the aforesaid contention for

the simple reason that we could probably interfere with the

quantum of punishment only when we find that the punishment

awarded is shocking to the conscience of the court. This is a case
                                    24
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

those




circumstances we do not see how the punishment of compulsory

retirement awarded to her could 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
                                    25
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. Needless to say, 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
                                    26
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.

30.    We fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the

disciplinary authority.   We also find no reason to interfere with the

findings

arrived at

by       the

High

Court

giving

reason for

its

decision

with which we fully agree and find justification.

31.    We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is

dismissed but without any costs.

                                          ..........................................J
                                          [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]
                   27
                         ............................................J
                                  [ Anil R. Dave ]

New Delhi,
January 13, 2011.