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.
