Use of “highly sexist” language during a lecture for civil service probationers cost a Judge his job as the Apex Court upheld his compulsory retirement saying even a single aberration can't be tolerated in the Judiciary.
Though the allegations were levelled by ten women civil service probationers years ago & the Judicial officer had since got promotion, the Supreme Court said past adverse record of a Judge doesn't lose the sting at any stage & action can be taken on that basis. The Judge had addressed the probationers as deputy director of the Administrative Training Institute in Ranchi.
A bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao & Justice Deepak Gupta also took into account the allegation that the Judge who was number 2 principle Judge of the Family Court in Godda in Jharkhand had put a hot iron on the head of a washerman who hadn't ironed his clothes properly.
While upholding the High Court of Jharkhand decision to compulsory retire the Judge, the Supreme Court went through the complaint filed by women probationers & found that the language used by him was “highly sexist”.
The Bench observed that “There are two very serious allegations against him. The first is that when he was working as deputy director, Administrative Training Institute at Ranchi, as many as 10 women, who were civil service probationers, made allegations that he was using unwarranted & objectionable language during his lectures, citing indecent examples & using words having double meaning, thereby causing embarrassment. We have perused the complaints which are filed with the reply & the common refrain is that the language used by him during his lectures was highly sexist. There is also another allegation that he had physically hurt a washerman by placing a hot iron on the head of the washerman who had allegedly not ironed his clothes properly".
The Court also upheld compulsory retirement for another Judge whose integrity had been doubted more than once. The Court noted that even his knowledge of law & procedures was found to be average & his relations with members of the Bar was found to be not very good.
The Bench said that “There are also allegations against him of having granted bail for illegal gratification & substance has been found in this allegation in the report of the judicial commissioner, Ranchi. The officer had granted bail by noting in the order that Section 327 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was bailable whereas the offence is non-bailable & an unrecorded warning regarding the integrity of the judicial officer was issued to him in 2012".
Challenging the administrative order of the High Court, the Judicial officers had contended that their entire service record, especially the contemporaneous record, hadn't been taken into consideration.
They said they had been granted various promotions which would have the effect of “washing off” their previous adverse entries, if any.
But the Court denied accepting their contention.
The Bench said that “While considering the case of a judicial officer for compulsory retirement the entire record of the judicial officer should be taken into consideration, though the latter & more contemporaneous record must be given more weightage. Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer should be compulsorily retired".
Source Link
