Gujarat High Court

Ajay Devendrakumar Acharya vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 2024

Author: Biren Vaishnav

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




    C/SCA/10372/2023                               CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

                                                                                      undefined




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10372 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

==========================================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       AJAY DEVENDRAKUMAR ACHARYA
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYRAJ CHAUHAN(2966) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MAYANK CHAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MS TRUSHA K PATEL(2434) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
          and
          HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                               Date : 06/02/2024

                               CAV JUDGMENT

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)

1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:

"(A) A writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 19.12.2022 at Annexure - B& inquiry report dated 3.3.2021 passed below Ex 316 at Annexure- C by declaring it as illegal, biased, arbitrary, nonspeaking, dehors the evidence available on record, in violation of procedural irregularity, as null and void, bad in law and ultravirus.

(B) Further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in active service by granting all the consequential benefits attached to service including pay, arrears, higher scale and grade, allowances, leave, promotion forthwith and 9% interest on all the monetary benefits and direct the respondent authority to make necessary endorsement in service book of petitioner to meet with ends of justice;"

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The petitioner is an Ex-Judicial Officer. He was

appointed as Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

on 26.11.2010 through direct selection. During the tenure as

a Judicial Officer, he discharged his duties as Additional Civil

Judge & JMFC, Vapi from 17.05.2012 to 09.03.2015, as

Principal Civil Judge & JMFC Vapi from 09.03.2015 to

13.05.2015 and thereafter at Kaprada, Valsad from

13.05.2015 to 27.08.2015. Before he was dismissed from

service, he was the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Shihor, Dist.

Bhavnagar.

2.2 While the petitioner was discharging his duties as

Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Vapi for the period from May

2012 to March 2015, a charge-sheet came to be issued to the

petitioner on 24.06.2016 setting out five articles of charge.

Briefly stated, it was the case of the department that while the

petitioner was working as Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Vapi

during the period from 17.05.2012 to 09.03.2015, he adopted

corrupt practices in various matters in collusion with several

advocates; that he was having illicit relations with a lady; that

in a criminal case the petitioner dictated the examination in

chief to a clerk in his chamber in the absence of the

concerned witness and thereafter after making alterations in

the examination in chief, the cross examination was dictated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

by the petitioner to his clerk in the absence of the witness;

that in another criminal case while the cross examination of

the complainant was conducted by his advocate, the petitioner

did not dictate the verbatim reply as given by the petitioner in

his cross examination and that the petitioner instructed his

Bench Clerk to tear away page no. 3 of the said cross

examination; that the petitioner hardly came on board in the

second sitting and used to spend time in the chamber

entertaining various advocates discussing, negotiating and

making demand of illegal gratification in exchange of judicial

favours in various cases.

2.3 On 05.08.2016, the petitioner replied to the charge-

sheet. Since the charge-sheet was based on certain audio and

video recordings which were carried out by an advocate Mr.

Jagat Patel by placing cameras in the chamber of the

delinquent - petitioner, the CDs, 2 in number, were sent for

examination to the FSL and based on reports of the FSL, the

departmental proceedings came to be initiated. After

examination and cross examination of the witnesses on behalf

of the petitioner and the department, an Inquiry Officer was

appointed who submitted his report on 03.03.2021 holding

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

that all the charges except that of the petitioner having an

illicit relationship were proved. In other words, of the five

charges four charges were held to be proved. A show-cause

notice was issued on 30.07.2022 and after recording a

personal hearing to the petitioner by an order dated

19.12.2022, by the impugned order, the services of the

petitioner was put to an end by passing an order of dismissal.

3. Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner

extensively made the following submissions assailing the

order of the disciplinary authority:

(a) That the order of dismissal is bad inasmuch as the

order of the disciplinary authority was not

communicated to the petitioner. That by virtue of such

non-communication, there was violation of Rule 12 of the

Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971

(for short 'the Discipline & Appeal Rules').

(b) That there was violation of Rules 5, 9(a), 10, 11, 13,

14, 15 & 16 of the Vigilance Cell (Judicial Department)

Rules, 1986 inasmuch as the Special Officer, Vigilance

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

i.e. an officer in the cadre of District Judge did not

possess the powers of conducting a discreet inquiry,

record statements as such powers are specifically

assigned to a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy

Inspector General of Police. He would take the court to

the relevant provisions of the rules to submit that the

term 'Vigilance Officer' has been defined to mean a

person in the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police

and therefore recording of preliminary statement and

inquiry thereafter being not in accordance with the rules

would make the order of dismissal bad.

(c) That the ingredients of Section 7 of Corruption Act

were not fulfilled because it was not the case of the

complainant that he had offered any illegal gratification

and it is not the case of the complainant that he had

witnessed such demand and acceptance of illegal

gratification. Taking the court through the statement

given by the complainant - Advocate Jagat Patel at Ex.

98, Mr. Chauhan would butress his submission.

(d) That the sole evidence by virtue of which the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

charges in question are being proved are the two CDs

and the record indicates the FSL reports which on

reading would make it evident that the CDs are not

genuine, they are doctored and that the clippings have

been merged and edited. He would take us through the

relevant contents of the FSL report to submit that it is

categorically recorded by the report that there were two

jerks in the CDs and that the hash values were not

matching and therefore it was evident that the data was

not original, authentic and genuine and therefore it

cannot be said to be legally recognized or legally

acceptable evidence.

(e) That the originals or the sources of the CDs i.e. the

CPU and the hard disks were not produced on record of

the departmental proceedings and they are only forming

a part of the criminal proceedings. He would therefore

inviting the court to the relevant portion of the FSL

report which opined that since the computer containing

the original CPU and the hard disk is absent no opinion

can be expressed, submit that the Inquiry Officer's

report holding the charges as proved is bad in law

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

inasmuch as in absence of such material, it was clearly a

case of no evidence.

(f) That if the contents of the two CDs are examined, it

was the case of the petitioner even during the course of

the departmental proceedings, that it was a clear case of

extortion by the complainant Mr. Jagat Patel and the

Inquiry Officer as well as disciplinary authority failed to

take note of this fact. He would invite the court's

attention to the relevant pages of the court's report to

submit that the data that was produced through the CDs

was doctored, manipulated and that the recording which

was done in the year 2014 was only recorded and

replayed one year thereafter which seriously

compromised the genuineness of the data based on

which the Inquiry Officer held the charges to be proved.

(g) That merely by relying on the examination in chief of

the complainant and taking the terms in the recording

where a figure was mentioned as an amount agreed to

be paid cannot be presumed to be exchange of dialogue

for accepting money inasmuch as such figures were not

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

succeeded by the term 'Rupees' and by copying and

wasting various episodes of different dates made the

evidence untrustworthy.

(h) That in absence of reasons recorded by the

disciplinary authority, the order of dismissal from

service was bad, and therefore in violation of principles

of natural justice. He would therefore submit that the

order of dismissal dated 19.12.2022 ought to be quashed

and set aside.

(i) In support of his submissions, Mr. Chauhan had

taken the court through the voluminous records

produced before this court i.e. the Inquiry Officer's

report, the evidence of complainant and the night

watchman who facilitated the planting of cameras in the

chamber of the petitioner and the relevant clauses of the

FSL report to contend that there was no legal evidence

on record to sustain the order of dismissal.

(j) Assailing the order, Mr. Chauhan would rely on the

following decisions:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

 To submit that there has to be assignment of

reasons and proper appreciation of evidence

P.Chandrasekharan Versus S.Kanakarajan [(2007)

5 SCC 669; Sant Lal Gupta Versus Modern Co-

operative Group Housing Society Limited [(2010)

13 SCC 336];

 To argue that an inquiry report which is based on

evidence and suffers from non application of mind

would result into a domestic inquiry being vitiated

Rajinder Kumar Kindra Versus Delhi

Administration Through Secretary (Labour) [(1984)

4 SCC 635].

 To submit that there has to be a proper

appreciation of evidence to come to a proper and

just conclusion

Nazir Mohamed Versus J.Kamala [(2020) 19 SCC

57] and Rengan Ambalam Versus Sheik Dawood

[(2019) 6 SCC 399].

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

 to assail the Inquiry Officer's report on the ground

that the certificate under section 65-B of the

Evidence Act was not given simultaneously and

therefore such evidence could not have been

accepted.

Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others [(2014) 10

SCC 473]

 In support of his submission that it is permissible

for this court to exercise powers under Article 226

of the Constitution of India and judicially review

the order of dismissal when giving of reasons is

flawed.

S.N.Chandrashekar Versus State Of Karnataka

[(2006) 3 SCC 208]

 In support of his submissions that powers of

judicial review can be exercised when the

procedure prescribed under the rules is not

followed and such failure to follow the rules results

in deprivation of livelihood

Mathura Prasad vs. Union of India and Others

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

[(2007) 1 SCC 437]

 On the question of reasonableness and

proportionality in the matters of punishment

Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and Another

[(2008) 3 SCC 84]

(ja) For the purposes of assailing the order of dismissal

being vitiated on the ground of being without reasons, Mr.

Chauhan would rely on the following decisions :

 Notified Area Committee vs. Additional Director,

Consolidation and Others [(2002) 10 SCC 87]

 P. Seshadri vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and Others

[(2011) 5 SCC 454]

 State of U.P vs. Battan and Others [(2001) 10 SCC

607]

 M/s. Ajantha Industries and Others vs. Central

Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and Others

[(1976) 1 SCC 1001]

 Ran Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana and

Another [(2008) 4 SCC 72]

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

 Ambalal Somabhai Parmar and Others vs. State of

Gujarat and Another [(2004) 3 GLR 2397]

 Bharatha Matha and Another vs. R. Vijaya

Renganathan and Others [(2010) 11 SCC 483]

 Harbans Lal vs. Jagmohan Saran [(1985) 4 SCC

333]

 Kanachur Islamic Education Trust ® vs. Union of

India and Another [(2017) 15 SCC 702]

 Oryx Fisheries Private Ltd. vs. union of India and

Others [(2010) 13 SCC 427]

4. Ms. Trusha Patel, learned advocate appearing for the

respondents no. 2 & 3 supported the order of dismissal. She

made the following submissions:

(A) That on reading the relevant depositions, especially

that of Mr. Jagat Patel - the complainant, it was evident

that the petitioner as a Judicial Officer would interact

with lawyers in question in matters of certain cases and

would only pass orders when it was agreed that a certain

amount of consideration is exchanged or paid to the

petitioner. The charge of corrupt practice adopted by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

the petitioner therefore was clearly established. She

would invite the attention of the court to the letter

written by the Vigilance Cell of the High Court to the

FSL, the relevant questions which were framed, the

report of FSL containing answers which would indicate

that there was no doubt about the genuineness and the

authenticity of the two CDs to suggest that there was

any alteration or modification. She would invite the

court's attention to the report of the FSL which

suggested that the contents of the 35 videos found on

the hard disk and the videos found in the CDs are

similar. That the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the hash value had changed was

justified as per the opinion of the FSL the format of the

CDs and video files fully matched and there was a

change in the hash tag for reasons which were different.

Relevant questions posed by the FSL Officer and

answered vide opinion were read out by the learned

counsel appearing for the High Court on its

administrative side.

(B) Relying on an apology letter written by the peon

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

Mr. Manish Patel, which in fact made the case of the

department clear and undeniable inasmuch as it was

factually correct to find that the peon had installed the

cameras and the microphone in the chamber. She would

invite the court's attention to the relevant provisions and

the paragraphs of the Inquiry Officer's report where it

was categorically found that the Inquiry Officer on

viewing the CDs and the video clips had found the

petitioner accepting packets though it was his

explanation that since he was unwell and Vapi was

closer to Shirdi etc. medications and prasad were being

brought by his well wishers. She would invite the

court's attention to the report of the inquiry Officer

which had the deposition of Mr. Manish Patel being

discussed and the contents of the CDs.

deposition and the recording of evidence, she would

submit that the statement of the Stenographer Mr. Bal

Krishna Prajapati at Ex. 159, contents of which have

been reproduced by the Inquiry Officer in paragraphs

no. 103 & 104, indicate that the evidence was recorded

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

in the chamber in the absence of the witness which was

proved by the contemporaneous evidence of the video

clip.

(D) With regards to charges no. IV & V also based on

the documents i.e. the deposition of the complainant and

the video clip and that the petitioner was not sitting in

the court during second sitting and instead was sitting in

the chamber was also proved as is extensively discussed

in the Inquiry Officer's report.

(E) That it is well settled that in departmental

proceedings, the standard of proof is 'preponderance of

probabilities' and not 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'.

In cases where the allegation is of corruption and there

is evidence on record which proves the charge beyond

doubt, and where the preliminary burden is on the

department which in the present case has been

sufficiently discharged, the onus would shift on the

delinquent to explain the evidence which the petitioner

failed to.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

(F) That the scope of judicial review is extremely

restricted.

(G) With regard to the argument of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the preliminary inquiry was

vitiated inasmuch as the inquiry was made by the

Special Officer and not by the Vigilance Officer, it was

submitted that this was not a procedural lacuna

inasmuch as it was pre-disciplinary proceeding and that

it was not the case of the petitioner that the

departmental proceedings initiated under the Discipline

& Appeal Rules were vitiated.

(H) That the rules are framed under Article 235 of the

Constitution of India. These rules form the Vigilance

Cell and as per the provision of Article 235, it does not

take away the powers of the High Court for complete

control over the subordinate judiciary. Reading the

relevant provisions of the rules namely Rules 3(a) and

3(b), she would submit that the Vigilance Cell has to

function at the directions of the High Court. It is the

Vigilance Cell which has to function of which the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

Vigilance Officer is a part and therefore to pick and

choose a particular officer and then assail the procedure

is incorrect. The rules cannot be read in isolation.

(I) In support of her submission, Ms. Patel would rely

on the following decisions to submit that the provisions

of Evidence Act do not apply to departmental

proceedings; that under Article 235 of the Constitution

of India, the High Court has power to make procedural

provisions and when there is evidence of corruption by a

Judicial Officer and in cases of corruption when such

direct evidence cannot be available, the High Court will

not interfere and on the limited scope of Article 235 of

the Constitution of India also Ms. Patel would submit

decisions in support of her case. She would also rely on

a decision to submit that if the Inquiry Officer's report is

accepted by the disciplinary authority there is no need to

give detailed reasons. The decisions relied upon by Ms.

Patel are as under:

◦ Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs. Narender

Singh [2006 AIJEL SC 37042]

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

◦ Champaklal Bhudarlal vs. J.B. Jhala [1979 AIJEL-HC

202044]

◦ Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (P.J.) Indian Oil

Corporation Limited Haldia [2005 AIJEL SC 35798]

◦ R. R. Parekh vs. High Court of Gujarat [2016 AIJEL SC

58782]

◦ Corporation of the City of Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur

vs. Ramchandra [1981 AIJEL SC 6935]

◦ S. Sreesanth vs. Board of Control of Cricket in India

[2019 AIJEL SC 63831]

◦ State of Gujarat & Others vs. R.M. Chaudhary

[2001(3) GLH 409]

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsels for the respective parties, the perusal of the charge-

sheet indicates that five charges were levelled against the

petitioner - a Judicial Officer who was discharging his duties

as Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Vapi. The five charges are

as under:

"Charge-I: That while working as a Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Vapi, Dist. Valsad from 17/05/2012 to 09/03/2015, he adopted corrupt practice in various matters in collusion with advocates M/s.DJ

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

Patel, SK Kakkad, DA Patel, KJ Shah, Jitu Parmar & DN Shah, APP Mr.BB Rathod and advocate Ms.Salima Hudani and also facilitated and abated corrupt practices adopted by Mr.PD Inamdar, the then Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Vapi, Dist. Valsad.

Charge-II: That Mr.AD Acharya was having illicit relations' with advocate Ms.Salima Hudani.

Charge-III: That in Criminal Case No.2813/2013, Stenographer Mr.Shrimali had prepared the judgment in a particular way. But, Mr.AD Acharya delayed delivering the judgment by instructing Mr.Shrimali not to place the judgment for pronouncement in the said case. In the said case, on 02/01/2014, Examination-in-Chief (page no.1 &

2) were dictated to the clerk Mr.Balkrishna Prajapati by APP Mr.BB Rathod in the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya in absence of the concerned witness Mr.Dinesh Sinha. Thereafter, on 26/03/2014, after making alterations at the end of the Examination-in-Chief dated 02/01/2014, cross examination i.e. page no.3 was dictated by Mr.AD Acharya to the clerk -Mr.Balkrishna in his chamber in absence of the concerned witness and advocate of the accused and Mr.AD Acharya signed the said cross examination by putting the date of 02/01/2014. Mr.AD Acharya is further charged that it was his duty to record the Examination-in-Chief and cross examination of the witness in the open court in presence of the witness and advocate of the accused and he could not make any alteration once the deposition was recorded. But, Mr.AD Acharya in collusion with APP Mr.BB Rathod dictated the same in absence of the witness and the advocate of the accused in the chamber and though the said cross examination was dictated on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

26/03/2014, he had made unauthorized alterations and put the date of 02/01/2014.

Charge-IV: That in Criminal Case No.2111 of 2011, while cross examination of the complainant Mr.Rashmikant Sevantilal Shah was conducted by advocate Mr.Jagat Patel on 29/06/2012, Mr.AD Acharya did not dictate the verbatim reply as given by the complainant in his cross examination and the same had been confirmed by the witness at the end of his deposition. In view of continuous opposition by advocate Mr.Jagat Patel, Mr.AD Acharya apprehended that he would be in trouble for the same and instructed Mr.Jignesh Gandhi, Bench Clerk to tear away page no.3 of the said cross examination. Mr.AD Acharya is further charged that as a Judicial Officer, it was his duty to record the evidence as given by the witness, instead, he first did not record the evidence faithfully, later made unauthorized alterations in the record of the evidence by destroying a portion thereof.

Charge-V: That Mr.AD Acharya would hardly come on Dais in second sitting in the afternoon and used to spend time in his chamber entertaining various advocates discussing, negotiating and making denmand of illegal gratification in exchange of judicial favours in various cases and thereby, did not observe required court hours for the judicial work and had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty."

5.1 Reading of the charges would indicate the gravity of the

same. The case of the department was that while the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

petitioner was working as a Principal Civil Judge, he adopted

corrupt practices in various matters in collusion with

advocates named in the charge-sheet. The other two charges

which have been proved are in respect of two criminal cases.

In Criminal Case No. 2813 of 2013, it is the case of the

department that though a judgement was prepared by the

stenographer Mr. Shrimali, the petitioner delayed in

delivering the judgement and on 02.01.2014, he facilitated

dictation of the examination-in-chief to his clerk by the APP

Mr. B.B. Rathod in his chamber in the absence of the witness

Mr. Dinesh Sinha. Thereafter on 26.03.2014, after making

alterations at the end of the examination-in-chief, the

petitioner dictated the cross examination to the clerk and

thereafter put the date of 12.01.2014.

5.2 In respect of the other charge, it is the case of the

department that in Criminal Case No. 2111 of 2011, while

cross examining the complainant, there was no verbatim

dictation of the version as was conducted by the advocate and

when the advocate continued opposing the fact that the

Judicial Officer was not dictating the correct version of the

cross examination, the petitioner instructed his Bench Clerk

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

to tear away page no.3 of the cross examination. Charge no.

V was with regard to the fact that the petitioner did not sit on

the dais in the second sitting and would rather entertain

advocates in his chamber.

6. The Inquiry Officer's report is on record. The charge

with regard to the petitioner adopting corrupt practices with

the advocates in various matters was sought to be proved, as

is evident and reading the report, based on a complaint that

was lodged by an advocate Mr. Jagat Patel before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court which was transferred to the High Court on its

administrative side for action. For the period between

February 2014 and May 2014, the said Mr. Jagat Patel who

was a witness examined at ex. 98 was facilitated by Mr.

Manish Patel, a peon cum night watchman to place two

cameras in the chamber of the petitioner, one to record video

clips and the other to record audio clips which formed part of

two CDs. By editing and merging versions of different dates

and on a conjoint alienation of the audio and the video

recording read in context of the deposition of the witness

Jagat Patel, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that

there was a dialogue in the chamber of the petitioner for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

exchange of money in lieu of passing favourable orders by the

concerned Judicial Officer i.e. the concerned petitioner.

7. Ms. Trusha Patel, learned advocate for the High Court

has taken us through the deposition of Mr. Jagat Patel. In his

examination, reading of which has also been discussed by the

Inquiry Officer, it has come on record that the petitioner

would interact with the advocates named in the charge-sheet.

The witness Mr. Jagat Patel who is examined at Ex. 98

indicates that he had submitted a complaint to the High Court

on 26.01.2015. The CDs depict that there were conversations

recorded which indicated that the petitioner was demanding

illegal gratification from advocates and that packets were

handed over by the concerned advocates when orders were

passed.

8. Perusal of the Inquiry Officer's report in context of the

relevant charge would indicate that there were CDs A, B & C

which contained the main evidence which was relied against

the delinquent who was a part of the joint inquiry conducted.

Though it was the case of the petitioner that the original

source of the data was not produced, that there were cuts in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

the video clips and that the hash value of the video clips were

changed and that it was the intention of the complainant to

extort money, the Inquiry Officer addressed the important

issue and the question whether the evidence in the form of

CDs can be relied upon in holding the delinquent guilty of the

charge.

8.1 Perusal of the Inquiry Officer's report indicates that he

has discussed the deposition of Mr. Jagat Patel at Ex. 98.

Reading of the deposition as set out by Mr. Patel would

indicate that it was the case of the complainant that it was the

belief of the advocates that the petitioner would engage in

corruption. Therefore, complainant installed spy camera. One

camera was installed on the right side of the sitting place of

the petitioner in a carton containing books whereas a similar

camera was installed under the chair besides the chair of the

petitioner. This he could do with the cooperation of the

watchman cum peon Mr. Manish Patel. Of both these

cameras, one facilitated video recording and the other audio

recording. Mr. Jagat Patel in his deposition had stated that

these cameras had inbuilt memory to record data which at the

end of the day the complainant would transfer to an external

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

hard disk from his computer. CD A was prepared by merging

two separate incidents dated 18.03.2014 and 21.03.2014

which recorded a fact that the petitioner was sitting with two

advocates Mr. B.J. Patel and Mr. D.J. Patel. Merging of two

different incidents of two different dates and the perusal of

the video and audio clips as witnessed and appreciated by the

Inquiry Officer indicated that the petitioner was seen

discussing agreeing for passing an order based on a figure

that was accepted to be received by the petitioner for passing

an order.

8.2 Reading of the Inquiry Officer's report would further

indicate that the Inquiry Officer based on the FSL reports

which were at Exs. 298 & 299 found that if the video file was

having an 'avi' format and it is converted into 'mpg' or any

other format, the hash value would change. As per the report

of the FSL, the clips in the CDs were in 'mpg' format whereas

the format of the video clips in the external hard disk was 'avi'

and since the format had changed, that resulted in the change

in hash value. This therefore would answer the learned

counsel for the petitioner's assertion of not relying on the

evidence on record.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

8.3 It is not acceptable for us to be persuaded by such an

argument that merely because the hash value of the

recordings had changed, the evidentiary value of the CDs and

the authenticity thereof could be doubted. The FSL report

when perused in context of the questions asked and those

answered would indicate that it was specifically opined that

the contents of the 35 videos found in the hard disk and the

videos in the CDs were similar and that the format of these

fully matched. The letter written to the FSL asking questions,

the report of the FSL and the report of the Photography

Department found that there was no tampering of the videos.

These are facts which have been brought on record and have

also been referred to by the Inquiry Officer during the course

of recording his findings.

9. The deposition of Mr. Manish Patel which is recorded at

Ex. 69, when appreciated in context of the Inquiry Officer's

report indicates that the advocates and the petitioner would

talk about 'setting'. That when he was compelled to sign a

stamp paper so as to submit that the CDs were bogus, the

Inquiry Officer in his report found that this infact would

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

indicate the fact of the petitioner having accepted the

authenticity of the CDs being proved. The Inquiry Officer has

discussed the FSL reports at Exs. 297 & 298 and opined that

the petitioner was blowing hot and cold inasmuch as he would

press for the authenticity of the CDs to make out a case that

these CDs were planted for extortion of money and this was

nothing but blowing hot and cold.

9.1 It has also come on record as is evident from the Inquiry

Officer's report that the petitioner refused to undergo a voice

spectography test and therefore based on the FSL report

which was on record, the Inquiry Officer came to the

conclusion that if the delinquent was of the opinion that the

audio and video data contained in the CDs was not authentic

or genuine, the best option for the petitioner was to cooperate

and get his voice spectography test conducted which the

petitioner refused to undergo.

10. It will be in the fitness of things with regard to these

charges to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the Inquiry

Officer's report in context of charge no. I.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

83. Now, we may refer to various video clips stored in the CDs. First, we may discuss about CD-A. In this CD, there is only one video clip saved with name 'DJPatel.mpg'. On watching this CD, it appears that the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is sitting in his chamber and two advocates who are seen present in the chamber. Out of them, one is Mr.DJ Patel and other one is his real brother Mr. AJ Patel. Advocate Mr.DJ Patel is arguing the bail application filed by him on behalf of the accused of the offence punishable under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The delinquent Mr.AD Acharya appears reluctant to grant the bail to the said accused. Advocate Mr.DJ Patel then cites the previous order passed by the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya in the similar nature of offence, wherein the bail was granted by him. Even then the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is not convinced to grant bail to the said accused. At the running time of 24:00, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling Mr.DJ Patel ".सु धी यतुं होय तो थे यतु ं होय तो थे होय तो थे ". Thereafter, there is a cut and at running time of 24:41, advocate Mr.DJ Patel is seen handing over a packet to the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya and Mr.AD Acharya receives the said packet and puts it in the drawer of his table. As discussed herein-above, the said video clip has been prepared by merging episodes of two different dates and therefore, there is a cut between two episodes. The delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is clearly seen demanding Rs.1.5 Lakhs from advocate Mr.DJ Patel and thereafter, is also seen receiving the packet from advocate Mr.DJ Patel. It is contended on behalf of the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya that what is heard in the CD is only '1.5'. The delinquent is not heard uttering the words thousands, lakhs or crores in the video clip. Therefore, it cannot be said that the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya had demanded any illegal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

gratification from advocate Mr.DJ Patel. It is true that the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is not heard saying '1.5 Lakhs' in the video clip. He is saying only '1.5'. But then, the fact remains that he had made a demand of illegal gratification from advocate Mr.DJ Patel for releasing his client on bail. Not only that, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is seen receiving a packet thereafter from advocate Mr.DJ Patel and putting it in the drawer of his table. If it was not an amount of illegal gratification, it is for the delinquent to explain as to what he meant by ".५ सुधी थतुं होय तो भो सु धी यतुं होय तो थे थतु ं होय तो थे होय तो भो" and what was the packet for. Non-utterance of thousands, lakhs or crores by the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya, is of no significance, once, he is clearly seen raising the demand with the advocate Mr.DJ Patel with regard to release of his client on bail.

84. Now, let us discuss about CD-B. This CD consist of 07 about (CD-B. folders and 04 files. The first folder is in the name of 'DJ Patel". There is ond Sub-Folder consisting four files. The said Sub- Folder is named as - 9 - 4 - 14' . In the said Sub- Folder there are two files. Out of which, one is video file, whereas the another is an audio file for the said video clip. The file named '9-4-14 DJPatel 4H Audio 27-37.mpg' is opened. At about 3 minutes and 15 seconds of running time, it is heard "समाधानी यतुं होय तो थे वात यावे छे ". At the same time, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling Mr.DJ Patel " पढे बा तारी यतुं होय तो थे पासे बे डसन बध बे ". At about 4 minutes and 57 seconds, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling " साडा यो ने गोठवी यतुं होय तो थे डाटने ". Later on, at about 5 minutes and 10 seconds, the advocate is heard telling the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya " होने ". That means, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is insisting for Rs.1.5 Lakhs, whereas the advocate is asking to demand Rs.2 Lakhs. At around 7 minutes and 2 seconds, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

advocate is heard discussing about some matter pending in the court of Judge Mr. PD Inamdar. At around 7 minutes and 20 seconds, the advocate is heard discussing about Rs.1.5 Lakhs. At around 8 minutes and 52 seconds, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling the advocate " बं होय तो थे ध काम होय तो डे ने, § 5ही यतुं होय तो थे ६४श". Thereafter, the advocate is telling Mr.AD Acharya about some matter pending in the court of Mr. PD Inamdar for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, which is connected to Jamnagar. At around 9 minutes and 30 seconds, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling the advocate that he would ask Mr. PD Inamdar.

85. In the next file being '16-4 DJP 5H-55.54.mpg', which is a video file, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya and advocate Mr.DJ Patel are found discussing some matter in the chamber of the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya. At about 00:33 minutes, advocate Mr.DJ Patel is heard asking the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya "डे टा पवाना छे ?". In reply, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is seen asking the advocate Mr.DJ Patel to telephone his client and inform him on 19th.

86. The next file is '18-2 DJP5H42M.mpg', which is an audio file. At around 00:15 minutes, advocate Mr.DJ Patel is heard telling the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya "धनामहधर साढे जने થોડુ .ં ....તકલીફ છે છે . જરા એક કામ એક કા એક કામમ હતુ.ં થતું હોય તો જરા" તો જરા એક કામ". At around 1 minute and 59 seconds, advocate Mr.DJ Patel is heard telling the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya "थोडु तमने , थोडु भने जी यतुं होय तो थे भवे ". The discussion going on between the two is about some matter pending in the court of Mr. PD Inamdar as also some other matter which the advocate Mr.DJ Patel insists to be finished on the very next date.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

87. Thereafter the second folder in the same CD, which is given the name "SA Kakkad", is there. There are 04 Sub-Folders in the said folder. The First Sub-Folder is given name "9-4-14". There are three files in the said folder. The first file is "9-4- 14 6H from 31MSKK.mpg". In the said video clip, advocate Mr.Sachin, Kakkad is seen in the chamber of the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya along with Mr.AD Acharya. At around 00:08 minute, advocate Mr.Sachin Kakkad is heard telling Mr.AD Acharya "डाम जानु नी यतुं होय तो थे छोटे छे ". He seems to be discussing about the matter pending in the court of Mr.PD Inamdar. At around 00:25 minute, Mr.Sachin Kakkad is heard telling Mr.AD Acharya that his client has approached the Court for release of the Passport and Mr.AD Acharya is seen telling Mr.Sachin Kakkad that he will look into it. Thereafter, some discussion about Mr.Jagat Patel is going on between them. Mr.Sachin Kakkad is asking Mr.AD Acharya to conduct the matter in slow motion. Mr.AD Acharya and Mr.Sachin Kakkad are also heard discussing about money in the said video clip. When Mr.AD Acharya asked him about the payment, Mr.Sachin Kakkad tells that Rs.50,000/- would be paid on the very day and the remaining amount would be paid later.

88. The next file is "9-4-14 6H PDI from 49.10M.mpg". In the said video clip, Mr.AD Acharya and Mr.PD Inamdar are seen present in the chamber of Mr.AD, Acharya and talking. At the running time 00:45, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling Mr.PD Inamdar "पी यतुं होय तो थेपी यतुं होय तो थेचे ७५ सुधी थतुं होय तो भो००० सी यतुं होय तो थेधां होय तो थे ". Then, Mr.PD Inamdar is seen asking Mr.AD Acharya " मारा नामे ?". At about 01 minute and 44 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling Mr. PD Inamdar about the matter for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC of Jamnagar and is also telling that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

advocate Mr.Sachin Kakkad had come and he wants the matter to be finished by Diwali. Then at about 02 minutes and 47 seconds, Mr.PD Inamdar is seen asking Mr.AD Acharya " यलाई ??". At about 04 minutes and 10 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard asking Mr. PD Inamdar " डे वा? डे टतां होय तो थे पाना?". At about 04 minutes and 30 seconds, Mr.PD Inamdar is heard telling Mr.AD Acharya that he may finish the matter prior to Diwali in four adjournments, if Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- are paid.

89. The next file in the said folder is "9-4-14 8H SKK 20 & 28 M.mpg". In the said video clip, Mr.AD Acharya and advocate Mr.Sachin Kakkad are seen in the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya. At around 00:49, Mr.AD Acharya is seen telling Mr.Sachin Kakkad "धनामहार नो ढाब झे न हतो". At around 01 minute and 26 seconds, Mr.Sachin Kakkad is seen asking Mr.AD Acharya "खाने ने sin x छुटी यतुं होय तो थे ४थे ?". At around 2 minute and 56 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is seen and telling "ने धां होय तो थे to which, Mr.Sachin Kakkad replied that Rs.30,000/- would be paid today and the remaining amount will be paid to him by his person. In the said video clip, a lady is seen entering the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya. She appears to be advocate Ms.Salima Hudani. At around 7 minute and 34 seconds, that lady is telling Mr.AD Acharya "ड्यारनी यतुं होय तो थे ं होय तो थे भां होय तो थे जे डी यतुं होय तो थे वी यतुं होय तो थे". To which, Mr.AD Acharya replied वे धटी यतुं होय तो थेग "मने जजर हती यतुं होय तो थे, तु ं होय तो थे ४ हथे ". At around 8 minutes and 51 seconds, the said lady is seen giving something to Mr.AD Acharya, which is received by Mr.AD Acharya and put in the drawer of his table. Mr.AD Acharya then thanks her and tells her " કા એક કામલે પ્રોબેટનું જોઇ બ્રઇશું" બ્રઇ બ્રઇશું"શ" ું .

90. The second Sub-Folder of the said folder is named "10-2- 14" prime prime There are 04 files. Out of which, 02 files are video files and 02 files

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

are audio files of the same video. The file named '10-2-14 5H SKK 37M.mpg' is the video file, wherein, audio is not clear. However, the file '10-2- 14 SKK 5H audio' is the audio file of the said video file. Upon hearing the said audio file, at around 1 minute and 29 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling My Sachin Kakkad " kari nakho figure". At around 1 minute and 34 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling "પેલા એક કામમા એક કામં ચા એક કામર કીધા એક કામં છે ને, આમા એક કામં પણ ચાર" ચા એક કામર". At around 5 minutes and 5 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling "ना આવ્ય તો જરા"ા એક કામ તો ના એક કામ આવ્ય તો જરા"ા એક કામ. આપણ ચાર"ને એમ કે આવે તો લઇ બ્રઇશું" લઇ બ્રઇશું"એ". At around 5 minutes and 44 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling "यार ने चार खा. जस तो". At around 7 minutes and 4 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling "ये ने हे थापी यतुं होय तो थे र हे , पे मेन्ट ४ आपी यतुं होय तो थे हे ". At around 8 minutes and 8 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling Mr.Sachin Kakkad "આઠ, એમા એક કામથ ં ી તા એક કામરા એક કામ એક, એટલે सातनी यतुं होय तो थे ही यतुं होय तो थेगर भारी यतुं होय तो थे गथवानी यतुं होय तो थे". Mr.AD Acharya is further telling Mr.Sachin Kakkad "એને કે જ ે કે કન્ફ છેમે ં રસજા પડે એમ છે પડે એમ છે . તને સા એક કામજા પડે એમ છે પડીને તો તા એક કામરા એક કામ હોદ્દો અને પોલીટીકલ કે રીય તો જરા"ર સ્ટોપ થઈ જશે" જશે".

91. The next file is 10-2-14 SKK 4H37M.mpg", which is a video file, of which the file named '10-2- 14 SKK 4H32M.mpg' is the audio file. In the said file, Mr.AD Acharya and advocate Mr.Sachin Kakkad are seen discussing some matters in his chamber, which matters appear to be matters pertaining to the Prohibition Act, Negotiable Instruments Act and some other matters. At around 1 minute and 11 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling Mr.Sachin Kakkad "પેલા એક કામમા એક કામં લા એક કામખ લાખ કેજે ને લા એક કામખ લાખ કેજે ને કે જ ે ને . બીજા પડે એમ છેમા એક કામં વધા એક કામરે छे , जे भे टर डोमी यतुं होय तो थेटेडे से ". Then, Mr.Sachin Kakkad is seen showing his five fingers to Mr. AD Acharya and telling him "खाटला धा". Then, Mr.AD Acharya is asking him "via?". Then, Mr.Sachin Kakkad is telling him "यार डी यतुं होय तो थेधा हता". At around 5

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

minutes and 10 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is telling Mr.Sachin Kakkad "બરોબર છે . ચા એક કામર પકડય તો જરા"ા એક કામ છે , થોડુ ં આઘું પા એક કામછું કરીને ชย์ ตຢ ตຢຢ". At around 7 minutes and 10 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is asking Mr.Sachin Kakkad "भो भे टमां होय तो थे बे टतां होय तो थे ?". At around 7 minutes and 12 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya replies "ચા એક કામર ને બે છ થા એક કામય તો જરા", પછી તા એક કામરે થોડુ ં આઘું પા એક કામછું કરીને , રા એક કામઉન્ડ ફ છેીગર લા એક કામવવી હોય તો જરા" तो रथे ". At around 7 minutes and 24 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is telling Mr.Sachin Kakkad " ७ भे टले ७ पडी यतुं होय तो थे राणाना". At around 9 minutes and 16 seconds, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling "હે ન્ડસમ એમા એક કામઉન્ટ થઈ જશે" જશે".

92. The third Sub-Folder in the said folder is "13 - 2 -14" wherein, there are 02 files. Out of which, one is audio file and the another is video file. Both these files are pertaining to the same episode. In the video file, the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya and advocate Mr.Sachin Kakkad are seen sitting in the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya and discussing about some matters. Advocate Mr.Sachin Kakkad is telling Mr.AD Acharya "પેલા એક કામનો ફ છેોન આવી ગય તો જરા"ો. સા એક કામડા એક કામ પા એક કામંચ કહી દીધી". Then, Mr.AD Acharya is asking him "बधारे नथी यतुं होय तो थे डी यतुं होय तो थेधां होय तो थे ?". To which, Mr.Sachin Kakkad is replying "डिडं होय तो थे , खे डने ट साडा पां होय तो थेय". Then, advocate Mr.Sachin Kakkad tells Mr.AD Acharya that he would receive his reply in the evening. Then Mr.AD Acharya is telling him "બોટમ લા એક કામઈ જશે"ન કીધી છે . એમા એક કામં તો મા એક કામરે વિવચા એક કામરવા એક કામનો પણ ચાર" પ્રશ્નન નથી. બીજો ઓપ્શન પણ ચાર" નથી એની પા એક કામસે". Then, Mr.AD Acharya is telling Mr.Sachin Kakkad that he has to report for the training at the High Court on 24th, 25th and 26th and he would leave for Ahmedabad on 22nd which is a Saturday. Mr.AD Acharya is asking Mr.Sachin Kakkad to collect money, so that he can finish the work at Baroda. Then, Mr.AD Acharya is asking Mr.Sachin Kakkad "डी यतुं होय तो थेनां होय तो थे ने કલેક્શન હોય તો જરા" તે જોઈ જશે" લેજ.ે હું ૨૧મીએ નીકળવા એક કામનો છુ ં . પઠા એક કામણ ચાર"ી કરવી હોય તો જરા" તો પઠા એક કામણ ચાર"ી કરી દે . કા એક કામલે એનું પતે તો આનુએ ં કલેક્શન લઈ જશે" લેને. એને કહે ને કે પતી જશે બા એક કામપા એક કામ. હા એક કામલ કા એક કામમ છે તો

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

આપી દે ને ". Then, Mr.AD Acharya is heard assuring Mr.Sachin Kakkad that he would finish the matter by 15th April.

93.The next Sub-Folder is "24-3-14". There are 02 files in it of the same episode. Out of which, one is audio file and the another is video file. Again, in this video clip and audio clip, Mr.AD Acharya and advocate Mr.Sachin Kakkad are seen sitting in the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya and talking. Mr.Sachin Kakkad is asking Mr.AD Acharya "खापसे तै यार छे ?". To which, Mr.AD Acharya replies " तै यार र छे . पश डी यतुं होय तो थेबेर એટલે નથી કરતો કે બીજા પડે એમ છે પા એક કામંચ છ કા એક કામમ છે . એને કહીએ કે ડીકલેર થા એક કામય તો જરા" ત્ય તો જરા"ા એક કામરે તા એક કામરા એક કામ મા એક કામણ ચાર"સને હા એક કામજર રા એક કામખ લાખ કેજે ને, ને ડીક્લેર થા એક કામય તો જરા"

ત્ય તો જરા"ા એક કામરેજ જોવા એક કામની, તે પહે લા એક કામ નવિહં". Then, Mr.Sachin Kakkad is asking Mr.AD Acharya "पे मेन्ट काले मं होय तो थे गाची यतुं होय तो थे a b^ prime prime Mr.Sachin Kakkad is also heard telling Mr.AD Acharya "એવિપ્રલમા એક કામં વિરકવરી કરી લઉ.ં ડીક્લેર કરી દો". To which, Mr.AD Acharya replies " मां होय तो थे वा हे ने, मोटा भां होय तो थे थी यतुं होय तो थे डाटी यतुं होय तो थे દઇ બ્રઇશું"એ ને . મોટી મે ટર છે . ટે ન લેખ લાખ કેજે ને રુપીસની, તેમા એક કામંથી આપણ ચાર"ે એને કા એક કામઢી દઈ જશે"એ". Then, Mr.Sachin Kakkad is asking Mr.AD Acharya "थे ने जोलावी यतुं होय तो थेने इरी यतुं होय तो थेथी यतुं होय तो थे उन्मे की यतुं होय तो थे सG".

To which, Mr.AD Acharya replies "লা , পা , नडिहं होय तो थे थाय". Then, Mr.Sachin Kakkad is asking Mr.AD Acharya "अमृ तवाणी यतुं होय तो थे मे टर भो?". Then, Mr.AD Acharya replies "મે ં તો લખ લાખ કેજે નેા એક કામવી દીધી. તું છે એટલે પતા એક કામવી આપીએ. કા એક કામરણ ચાર"કે આટલું બધું નવિહં થા એક કામય તો જરા". ૩૧મી સુધીમા એક કામં તો શક્ય તો જરા"જ નથી. ચા એક કામરેક મવિહના એક કામ થઈ જશે"

ગય તો જરા"ા એક કામ, વિદવા એક કામળી સુધીની વા એક કામત હતી".

94. Thereafter, the third folder in the same CD is named "APP Rathod". There are 03 files in the said folder. In file '16-4 PP 6H18M.mpg', the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya and PP Mr.Rathod are seen sitting in the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya and they are discussing about the order passed by the Sessions Court in one Criminal Revision Application. The said Criminal Revision Application was filed challenging the order passed by Mr.AD Acharya as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

regards muddamal, whereby, Mr.AD Acharya had ordered to release the muddamal in question in favour of the accused. The original complainant had challenged the said order by filing Criminal Revision Application in the Sessions Court at Valsad. In one video clip, Mr.AD Acharya is heard and seen discussing the proceedings and outcome of the said revision application with somebody and is also heard talking foul about learned Additional Sessions Judge, who had allowed the said revision application and has quashed the order passed by Mr.AD Acharya.

95. In the same folder, two files namely "14-2-14 APP 5H51M audio" and "14-2-14 APP 5H51M" are audio file and video file, respectively. Both these files are pertaining to same episode of discussion between Mr.AD Acharya and APP Mr.Rathod. APP Mr.Rathod is heard telling Mr.AD Acharya "પેલા એક કામમા એક કામં ચોડુ ઘણ ચાર"ું પ્રોગ્રેસ કરા એક કામવીએ કા એક કામંઈ જશે"ક. પણ ચાર" સા એક કામહેબ, બહુ પ્રોગ્રેસ નવિહં થા એક કામય તો જરા"". Then, Mr.AD Acharya tells him "श्री यतुं होय तो थेमती यतुं होय तो थेलाई यु 8 ^ 91 Then, APP Mr.Rathod tells "મા એક કામણ ચાર"સ બોલા એક કામવીએ. પણ ચાર" સા એક કામહેબ, બહુ પ્રોગ્રેસ નવિહં ६२थे . 24 - 20 ^ 99 Then, Mr.AD Acharya replies "ना यार, भे टतामां होय तो थे તો કય તો જરા"ા એક કામં થા એક કામય તો જરા". કે સ તો ફ છેીટ છે . તમે જ જોઈ જશે" લો ને . તમે કય તો જરા"ા એક કામં અભણ ચાર" મા એક કામણ ચાર"સ છો". Then, APP Mr.Rathod tells Mr.AD Acharya "२० करी यतुं होय तो थे ६६थे ". To which, Mr.AD Acharya responds telling him "२५ सुधी थतुं होय तो भो हो ने . पधारे याय से म नथी यतुं होय तो थे?". To which, APP Mr. Rathod replies "२५ सुधी थतुं होय तो भो सु धी यतुं होय तो थे भो७. नडिहं होय तो थे तो २० श्री यतुं होय तो थे epsilon * 6 ^ 99 Then, Mr.AD Acharya is asking APP Mr. Rathod "से उन्मे छे छे ?". To which, APP Mr.Rathod replies "૨૦ સુધી તો કન્ફમૅ છે" સુધી તો કન્ફ છેમૅ છે" છે ".

96. The next folder in the same CD, is in the name of 'DA Patel'. There are 03 files in the said folder. The first file is 20-3-14 2H DA Patel 40.15M', where Mr.DA Patel appears to be standing in the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya and telling him "એક કા એક કામમ છે સા એક કામહેબ.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

એક આરોપી પકડા એક કામય તો જરા"ેલો છે . ટ્ રા એક કામન્સફ છેર વોરંટથી પા એક કામરડીથી લા એક કામવવા એક કામના એક કામં છે . પા એક કામછો કંઈ જશે" વલસા એક કામડ લઈ જશે" જવા એક કામના એક કામ છે ". Then, Mr.AD Acharya is asking him "એટલે વિરમા એક કામન્ડ પણ ચાર" છે ? શું કરવા એક કામનું છે ? આજે પતા એક કામવવા એક કામનું છે કે કા એક કામલ સુધીમા એક કામં ગ્રા એક કામન્ટ કરીએ". Then, Mr.DA Patel is heard telling something to Mr.AD Acharya and then asking him "પુરુ એટલે વિવધા એક કામઉટ રીમા એક કામન્ડ? કેટલા એક કામ કહે છે ?". Then, Mr.DA Patel is asking Mr.AD Acharya "प साहे ण होने ". Mr.AD Acharya then tells him "તું કહે ને, તને તો ખ્ય તો જરા"ા એક કામલ છે . તા એક કામરુ ં કંઈ જશે" થતું હોય તો જરા" તો જો. નવિહં તો પછી કા એક કામલનો વિદવસ ચા એક કામલુ છે તો તે પછી તે પ્રમા એક કામણ ચાર"ે કરી ના એક કામખ લાખ કેજે નેીએ". Mr.DA Patel is then heard telling Mr.AD Acharya "पोली यतुं होय तो थेसभा से भावन्ट વધા એક કામરે કહે છે . એક સા એક કામથે પ્રોડક્શન કરવા એક કામના એક કામં કંઈ જશે"ક ૩ કે ૪ લાખ માંગે છે એટલે એમાં જો લા એક કામખ લાખ કેજે ને મા એક કામંગ ે છે એટલે એમા એક કામં જો કંઈ જશે" ઓછુ થતુ હોય તો જરા", નવિહં તો કા એક કામલે કરી દઈ જશે"શુ.ં ફ છેીગર જે હોય તો જરા" તે , મા એક કામરી રીતે टे ब डरी यतुं होय तो थे हຢখ". Then, Mr.AD Acharya tells him "६२ ने , कं होय तो थेध नडिह. પછી મને મે રોજ આપી દે જે. પછી પેલા એક કામ બા એક કામય તો જરા"ો- ડીઝલ વા એક કામળુ શું થય તો જરા"? ું ". To which, Mr.DA Patel replies "એમા એક કામં ૮૦ સુધી તો કન્ફમૅ છે" પર અટકે લું છે . મે ં કીધું ૮૦ સુધી તો કન્ફમૅ છે" તો નવિહ ભા એક કામઈ જશે", છે લ્લે તું દોટ તો કર ગમે તે રીતે".

97. The next file in the same folder is - 20 - 3 - 14 6H DA Patel 42.1.3M", wherein, Mr.DA Patel is telling Mr.AD Acharya "એમા એક કામં સા એક કામહેબ ૯ ગુનાઓ છે ગુના એક કામઓ છે . આજે એકમા એક કામં લા એક કામવ્ય તો જરા"ા એક કામ છે . એમની સા એક કામથે વા એક કામતચીત કરી તો એ લોકો ૨ સુધી તૈ ય તો જરા"ા એક કામર છે . એટલે જેટલું ખ લાખ કેજે નેચા એક કામ ે ં ય તો જરા" એટલું ખ લાખ કેજે નેચીસ, ેં બા એક કામકી ર તો ८० ४ 6 ^ 99 Then, Mr.AD Acharya tells him "डी यतुं होय तो थे नां होय तो थेजने ध नडिह".

98. Thereafter, the next folder is '14-2-14 JITU', wherein, there are 03 files. The first file is '8.5 JITU 9H 3.56 * M' In the said file, Mr.AD Acharya and advocate Mr.Jitu Parmar are seen standing in the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling "next week मां होय तो थे याद करीने से करी यतुं होय तो थेने से ". The next file is '12-214 JITU 5H 33.37M', which is an audio file, wherein, Mr.AD Acharya is telling advocate Mr.Jitu Parmar that though the order is ready in the matter, he is not declaring it to see that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

Mr.Parmar gets sornething out of it. File '12-2-14 JITU 38M' is the video file of the same episode.

99. The next folder is in the name of "KJ Shah", wherein, there are 03 files. Out of which, first two files are the video-audio files of the same episode, which are '1KJ Shah - 11-4-14 2H16M' and '1KJ Shah 11-4-14 Audio 2H19M', wherein, Mr.AD Acharya is heard asking somebody to call Ashwin, who is a court duty constable of Vapi Town Police Station. After Mr.Ashwin enters the chamber, Mr.AD Acharya is asking him to bring opinion from the police station as regards the muddamal application. In one of the video clips, Mr.AD Acharya is heard telling somebody that he is going to dismiss the application filed by advocate Mr.Prashant Desai praying to join his client as party in the said muddamal application. This conduct on the part of the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, because, he has pre-judged the application filed by the advocate asking him to join his client as a party to the muddamal application and has decided and dismissed the said application before even hearing the said advocate. In the video files in the folder "KJ Shah", advocate Mr.KJ Shah is found present in the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya and is telling Mr.AD Acharya "यें ३६५ वाणामां ३६५ सुधी थतुं होय तो भो वाणामां होय तो थे ?". Then, Mr.AD Acharya asks him "शु के छे ?". Then, advocate Mr.KJ Shah shows two fingers to Mr.AD Acharya and tells "२ बाण रुडिपया sè è", Then, Mr.AD Acharya asks him "सावी यतुं होय तो थे गया डे नडिह?". To which, advocate Mr.KJ Shah is seen responding by pointing towards his pocket and tells "हा, खावी यतुं होय तो थे गया. 8 ^ prime prime . Then, Mr.AD Acharya and advocate Mr.KJ Shah are seen discussing the application given by advocate Mr.PJ Desai for joining the party. Mr.AD Acharya then tells Mr.KJ Shah that he wants to dictate a strong

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

order and then tells Mr.KJ Shah "तमने से पोवर ક્ય તો જરા"ા એક કામં કરુ? .. તમે પા એક કામટી| હોય તો જરા" તો એપીય તો જરા"ર કરુને"."

10.1 Reading of these relevant paragraphs would indicate

that on examination of the deposition of witnesses Mr. Manish

Patel and Mr. Jagat Patel and on watching CDs A & B, it is

found that one Mr. A.J. Patel and one Mr. D.J. Patel had

argued a bail application filed under The Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act. The petitioner appeared reluctant in

granting bail to the accused. When the concerned advocate

cited a previous order, the petitioner sounding unconvinced is

heard telling the advocate that he would accede to the request

of the advocate if an amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs is paid. Two

clips have been merged of two different dates and on reading

of these evidences it is found that a demand of illegal

gratification of Rs.1.50 lakhs was made. The defence of the

delinquent petitioner that this was not a demand in the nature

of illegal gratification but for pursuit in exercise of settlement

in a single window settlement and in absence of the word

'Rupees' anywhere in the clip is not acceptable. The Inquiry

Officer has viewed the CDs and arrived at a finding of fact

which cannot be said to be one sans the evidence on record to

dent such a finding.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

10.2 Reading of the Inquiry Officer's report also indicates

that the CDs had several folders namely 7 folders and 4 files.

It contained a folder in the name of D.J. Patel where the clip

indicated that there was a talk of collection and discussion

with regard to a matter pending in the court of judge P.D.

Inamdar which the petitioner had agreed to negotiate. It was

found as is evident from reading the Inquiry Officer's report

that the advocate had passed the petitioner as to the amount

that needed to be paid to Mr. Inamdar.

10.3 The second folder contained a CD with the name of an

advocate Mr. S.A. Kakkad where it is found that Mr. Kakkad is

heard telling the petitioner that his client had opposed the

court for release of a passport where the petitioner agreed to

look into it and where it is agreed that the advocate would pay

Rs.50,000/- and the remaining amount later. A discussion also

is found between the petitioner with regard to another matter

in context of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the

IPC. Perusal of the Inquiry Officer's report as reproduced

hereinabove would indicate that sub-folders in the CDs and

the playing thereof before the Inquiry Officer led the Inquiry

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

Officer to conclude that there were interactions between the

advocates and the petitioner delinquent for passing of orders

on consideration of money. A Judicial Officer indulging in

such transactions which fortunately has come on record

through recordings audio and visual shocks the conscience of

this court.

10.4 Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would

assail the authenticity of the video and audio clips by

extensively assailing the copy paste versions thereof, the

relevant portion of the FSL reports considered by the Inquiry

Officer indicates that the genuineness and authenticity of the

clips were beyond doubt and the merging of the video clips

were to maintain continuity to suggest the audacity of the

petitioner to indulge shamelessly in corruption.

11. With regard to charge no. III in context of the alteration

of the deposition in the criminal case, the Inquiry Officer has

considered the deposition of one Bal Krishna Prajapati. In

context of charge no. III, paragraphs no. 103 & 104 of the

report needs reproduction and the same read as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

"103. Charge-III: This charge leveled against the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is to the effect that, in Criminal Case No.2813/2013, Stenographer Mr.Shrimali had prepared the judgment in a particular way. But, Mr.AD Acharya delayed delivering the judgment by instructing Mr.Shrimali not to place the judgment for pronouncement in the said case. In the said case, on 02/01/2014, Examination-in-Chief (page no.1 & 2) were dictated to the clerk Mr.Ballrishna Prajapati by APP Mr.BB Rathod in the chamber of Mr.AD Acharya in absence of the concerned witness Mr. Dinesh Sinha. Thereafter, on 26/03/2014, after making alterations at the end of the Examination-in-Chief dated 02/01/2014, cross examination i.e. page no.3 was dictated by Mr.AD Acharya to the clerk Mr.Balkrishna in his chamber in the absence of the concerned witness and advocate of the accused and Mr.AD Acharya signed the said cross examination by putting the date of 02/01/2014.

Mr.AD Acharya is further charged that it was his duty to record the Examination-in-Chief and cross examination of the witness in the open court in presence of the witness and advocate of the accused and he could not have made any alteration once the deposition was recorded. But, Mr.AD Acharya in collusion with APP Mr.BB Rathod dictated the same in absence of the witness and the advocate of the accused in the chamber and though the said cross examination was dictated on 26/03/2014, he had made unauthorized alterations and put the date of 02/01/2014.

104. In this regard, the video clip in the file '1.26-3- 14CROSS8H requires to be seen. In the said video clip, initially, Stenographer Mr.Shrimali appears to have entered the chamber of the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya and tells him about the judgment being

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

ready. Then Mr.AD Acharya instructed Stenographer Mr.Shrimali that the clerk Mr.Chaudhari 'PC' has committed a mistake in recording the deposition of the witness, which needs to be corrected and therefore, the judgment is not to be pronounced in the said matter. The delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is seen asking Mr.Shrimali whether anybody has obtained the copy. Thereafter Mr.AD Acharya calls the clerk Mr.Balkaushna Prajapati and is giving some dictation. From what is being dictated by Mr.AD Acharya to Mr.Balkrushna Prajapati, it can be very well gathered that he is dictating cross examination of some witness to Mr.Prajapati. When the dictation is being given to Mr.Prajapati by Mr.AD Acharya, nobody else appears to be present in the chamber at that time. After the dictation is completed, somebody is seen putting rubber stamp on what is written by Mr.Prajapati and Mr.AD Acharya is also seen signing the same. From what is seen in the video clip, as discussed herein-above, it is clear that when the dictation was being given by the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya to the clerk Mr.Balkrushna Prajapati, neither the witness, whose cross examination was dictated, was present in the chamber, nor advocate for the accused on whose behalf the cross examination was dictated, was present in the chamber. In this regard, Exh.159, which is the statement of Mr.Balkrushna Prajapati dated 17/03/2015 given to the Registrar, Vigilance Cell, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, is required to be seen. In his statement, Mr.Prajapati has stated that on 02/01/2014, he was working as a Junior Clerk and the Bench Clerk Mr.Vipul Darji had called him and instructed to write down whatever was dictated by the APP Mr.Rathod. He was instructed to write down deposition in Criminal Case No.2813 of 2013. Initial details as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

regards the name of the witness, case number etc. were filled in by Bench Clerk Mr.Vipul Darji in his own handwriting and thereafter, he had written down what was dictated by APP in his chamber. The said deposition was at Exh.11 in the said criminal case. Upon being shown page 3 of the said Exh.11, Mr.Prajapati states that it is in his handwriting and the said writing was dictated to him by Mr.AD Acharya in his chamber. At that time, nobody except Mr.AD Acharya and him was present in the chamber. The witness was also not present. From this material, it is proved that in Criminal Case No.2813 of 2013, deposition of the witness i.e. Examination-in-Chief and Cross Examination were recorded in absence of the witness. From the discussion heard in the video clip, it appears that the deposition of the witness was previously recorded and since the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya was not satisfied with the same, it was subsequently altered. The statement of Mr.Balkrushna Prajapati (Exh.159) corroborates what is seen in the video clip. Thus, the statement of Mr.Balkrushna Prajapati proves that the video clip in question is genuine. From the said statement, the other thing which comes to fore, is the collusion between the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya and the concerned APP and their intentions and motives. The delinquent needs to explain as to why the deposition of the witness was recorded in his absence and more particularly, why the deposition recorded earlier, was changed. The conduct on the part of the delinquent and the concerned APP in recording the deposition of a witness in his absence indicates the intentions of both of them of doing an undue favour to somebody in that case. Thus, the Charge-III leveled against the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya is duly proved against him."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

11.1 Reading of the report would indicate that the petitioner

dictated and made alterations in the examination-in-chief and

cross examination in collusion with the Assistant Public

Prosecutor and such recording was done in the absence of the

witness in the chamber. The video clip in context of this

charge too when read in light of the statement of Mr.

Prajapati would suggest the charge as proved.

12. With regard to charge no. IV, the Inquiry Officer has

found that in Criminal Case no. 2111 of 2011 when there was

a continuous opposition by advocate Mr. Jagat Patel that the

petitioner was not recording the cross examination verbatim,

the petitioner instructed his bench clerk to tear away page no.

3. The deposition of Mr. Rashmikant Shah is at Ex. 159. The

Inquiry Officer has reproduced the version of the deposition

and the charge on the basis of such deposition how such

charge is treated to be proved. Para 106 reads as under:

"106.Copy of the deposition of Mr.Rashmikant Sevantilal Shah in Criminal Case No.2111 of 2011 is on record vide Exh.159. Upon perusal of the said deposition, it appears that there are corrections made in the deposition at various places and a note

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

also appears to have been made by the court as regards the conduct of the advocate Mr.Jagat Patel. After the note, it is recorded that " સા એક કામહેદ સ્વેચ્છા એક કામએ જણ ચાર"ા એક કામવેછેકે પોલીસ પ્રોટે ક્શન કે મ લેવા એક કામમા એક કામં -આવેલ છે તે બા એક કામબતમા એક કામં હકિકકત બે ત્રણ ચાર" મવિહના એક કામં પહે લા એક કામં કંપા એક કામઉન્ડ કરતા એક કામં સમય તો જરા"ે ઝઘડો કે તોફ છેા એક કામન થા એક કામય તો જરા" એ ડરથી મે ં કંપા એક કામઉન્ડ ન કય તો જરા"|ં,ુ પછી પોલીસ પ્રોટે ક્શન मां होय तो थे गी यतुं होय तो थेने कं होय तो थेपाउन्ड रे ल. Here, page 2 of the deposition ends. Page 3 of the deposition starts with "અત્ય તો જરા"ા એક કામરે બપોરના એક કામં ૨.૨૫ થયેલ હોવાથી હાલ પુરતી જુબાની મુલત્વી રાખવામાં થય તો જરા"ેલ હોવા એક કામથી હા એક કામલ પુરતી જુબા એક કામની મુલત્વી રા એક કામખ લાખ કેજે નેવા એક કામમા એક કામં આવે છે ". As per the charge, page 3 started with the "સા એક કામહેદ સવેચ્છા એક કામએ જણ ચાર"ા એક કામવેછે કે આ ઉપર જણ ચાર"ા એક કામવેલ નો ંધ ઉપરના એક કામં પેરા એક કામમા એક કામં લખ લાખ કેજે નેવા એક કામમા એક કામં આવેલ હકીકત "બના એક કામવના એક કામં બે થી ત્રણ ચાર" મવિહના એક કામં અગા એક કામઉ ફ છેે ન્સીંગ કરતી વખ લાખ કેજે નેતે પોલીસ પ્રોટે ક્શન કોઇ બ્રઇશું" તકરા એક કામર થા એક કામય તો જરા"

નવિહં તેના એક કામ મા એક કામટે રા એક કામખ લાખ કેજે નેવા એક કામમા એક કામં આવેલ"ું જે મે ં લખ લાખ કેજે નેા એક કામવેલ નથી". The delinquent Mr.AD Acharya had instructed the Bench Clerk to destroy this page and start writing the deposition on new page. The Bench Clerk Mr.Jignesh Gandhi is examined at Exh.146 in the present inquiry. Mr.Jignesh Gandhi in his deposition has stated that since it was recess time, the cross examination of the said witness was adjourned. He also states that since there were only two or three lines written on the new page, the Presiding Officer had instructed him to put it aside and take new page, which is give page number 3. Mr.Jignesh Gandhi also states that since there was no signature of the Presiding Officer on page 3 and since the new page was already taken, the page on which, two or three lines were written, was destroyed by him upon the instructions of the Presiding Officer i.e. the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya and had thrown it in the dustbin. The copy of the deposition, which was earlier written on page, 3, is on record vide Exh.116. Upon perusal of the same, it appears that the witness has stated that what was written in the earlier part of the deposition, was not stated before the court and this part of the deposition was dictated by Mr.AD Acharya, as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

stated by Mr.Jignesh Gandhi in his deposition. Thus, it appears that since what was earlier stated on page 3 in the deposition, do not appear to be conducive and convenient to the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya, he had instructed the Bench Clerk to destroy the same. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya that earlier Mr.Jagat Patel had already submitted an application in this regard and then, the learned Principal District Judge, Valsad had called Mr.Jagat Patel and his statement was also recorded and the matter was put to rest thereafter. Thus, the matter which had already concluded, is again sought to be re-opened by Mr.Jagat Patel. This authority, while acting as an Inquiry Officer, is only required to see whether the charge leveled against the delinquent, is proved or not. It is not for this authority as an Inquiry Officer to see whether a particular matter was put to rest earlier and even if, the said matter h ad concluded earlier, the same would not have any baron on the findings of the present authority, which is on the basis of the record of inquiry. I therefore hold the Charge-IV leveled against the delinquent Mr.AD Acharya to have been proved against him."

12.1 Reading of the report which is based on appreciation of

evidence would indicate audacity with which the petitioner as

a Judicial Officer has belied the expectations of this court in

rendering duties with what was expected of such Judicial

Officer.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

13. In context of assailing the proceedings on the basis of

the fact that it was the Deputy Inspector General of Police

who had to carry out the vigilance inquiry, perusal of the

vigilance rules would indicate that it is the vigilance cell

created by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article

235 which gives complete control over the subordinate

judiciary, that the rules are framed. In context thereof, it will

be in the fitness of things to reproduce paragraph no. 3 of the

decision cited by learned counsel for the respondent in the

case of Ramchandra (supra).

"3. Thus clause (b) of s. 59(3) in express terms authorises and clothes the Municipal Commissioner with the power to exercise supervision and control over the acts of Municipal officers and servants. It may be noticed that the said clause (b) is preceded by the words 'vest in the Commissioner'. When the words 'control' and 'vests' are read together they are strong terms which convey an absolute control in the authority in order to effectuate the policy underlying the rules and makes the authority concerned the sole custodian of the control of the servants and officers of the Municipal Corporation. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi(1) while interpreting a similar language employed in Art. 235 of the Constitution of India which confers control by the High Court over District courts, this Court held that the word 'control' would include the power to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

take disciplinary action and all other incidental or consequential steps to effectuate this end and made the following observations:

"The word "control", as we have seen, was used for the first time in the Constitution and it is accompanied by the word "vest" which is a strong word. It shows that the High Court is made the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary. Control, therefore, is not merely the power to arrange the day to day working of the court but contemplates disciplinary jurisdiction over the presiding Judge,"

"In our Judgment, the control which is vested in the High Court is a complete control subject only to the power of the Governor in the matter of appointment (including dismissal and removal) and posting and promotion of District Judges. Within the exercise of the control vested in the High Court, the High Court can hold enquiries, impose punishments other than dismissal or removal."

This view was reiterated in High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. V.V.S. Krishnamurhty & Ors.(2) where this Court clearly held that 'control' included the passing of an order of suspension and that the power of control was comprehensive and effective in operation. In this connection, Sarkaria, J. speaking for the Court, observed as follows:-

"The interpretation and scope of Article 235 has been the subject of several decisions of this Court. The position crystalized by these decisions is that the control over the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

subordinate judiciary vested in the High Court under Article 235 is exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and effective in operation. It comprehends a wide variety of matters. Among others, it includes:

(a) (i) Disciplinary jurisdiction and a complete control subject only to the power of the Governor in the matter of appointment, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank of District Judges, and initial posting and promotion to the cadre of District Judges. In the exercise of this control, the High Court can hold inquiries against a member of the subordinate judiciary, impose punishment other than dismissal or removal........

(ii) In Article 235, the word 'control' is accompanied by the word "vest" which shows that the High Court alone is made the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary.

The control vested in the High Court, being exclusive, and not dual, an inquiry into the conduct of a member of judiciary can be held by the High Court alone and no other authority.........

(iii) Suspension from service of a member of the judiciary, with a view to hold a disciplinary inquiry."

13.1 It is well settled that in the nature of proceedings where

there are departmental proceedings, the scope of judicial

review is extremely limited and restricted. It is not for this

court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

Constitution of India to assess and reassess the evidence

when the test of evidence is preponderance of probability and

not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Para 25 of the decision in

the case of Narender Singh (supra) observes that it is now

well settled that the provisions of the Evidence Act are not

applicable in a departmental proceeding. Similarly, para 12

of the decision in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag (supra) need

reproduction which indicate that the rules of appreciation of

evidence viz-a-viz criminal proceedings and departmental

proceedings are not similar.

13.2 Para 12 of the decision in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag

(supra) reads as under:

"12. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside."

[Emphasis Supplied]

13.3 In criminal law the burden of proof on the prosecution

and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

a court of law whereas in a departmental inquiry a penalty

can be imposed on a delinquent officer on a finding recorded

on the basis of preponderance of probability.

14. Having seen the Inquiry Officer's report which is

extensively reproduced hereinabove, it is well settled by

several decisions of the court that in exercise of powers under

Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court

cannot reappreciate the evidence especially when the

conclusions as aforesaid in the present case of the Inquiry

Officer are based on evidence which is adequate, reliable and

legal. Authenticity of the CDs, the recordings which may have

been the sole evidence but which can be taken on record and

when appreciated in light of the testimonies of the

complainant and Mr. Manish Patel indicate that several

episodes have been copied and merged to create a continuous

chain of circumstances which the Inquiry Officer on playing

the CDs has come to the conclusion to prove and bring home

the charge of corruption against the Judicial Officer.

14.1 As is evident by referring to a decision of the Apex Court

in the case of R.R. Parekh (supra), that whether a Judicial

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

Officer has been actuated by an oblique motive or a corrupt

practice has to be determined upon a careful appraisal of the

material on record which in our opinion has been done by the

Inquiry Officer. Direct evidence on corruption may not be

always forthcoming in every case involving misconduct.

However, here is a case where evidence on record which is

legally acceptable has been found where the petitioner can

reasonably be seen and in our opinion beyond doubt to having

engaged in a dialogue with advocates to pass orders in lieu of

consideration other than legal. Such a charge and a conduct

would indicate that there was no honest exercise of judicial

powers by a judicial Officer. No mercy can be shown to a

Judicial Officer who blatantly and defiantly engaged in

corruption.

15. As far as assailment of the order on the ground of sans

reasons, we agree with the submission of learned advocate for

the respondent that once having accepted the Inquiry

Officer's finding which indicates a detailed analysis no

separate reasons need to be assigned.

16. As far as the non-communication of the order is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10372/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

concerned, it is an admitted fact that the order was published

in the official gazette.

17. A Judicial Officer who blatantly and shamelessly has

indulged in corruption cannot receive indulgence even on the

ground of proportionality from this court in exercise of powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. For all the aforesaid reasons, therefore, we are of the

opinion that the order of dismissal dated 19.12.2022

dismissing the petitioner from service is just and proper.

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) DIVYA

Supreme Court Judgments

High Court Judgments

Campus Buzz

Library

Legal Education

More

Circulars & Notices

Ajay Devendrakumar Acharya vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 971 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Ajay Devendrakumar Acharya vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 2024

Author: Biren Vaishnav

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Ajay Devendrakumar Acharya vs State Of Gujarat2024 Latest Caselaw 971 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Ajay Devendrakumar Acharya vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 2024

Author: Biren Vaishnav

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Ajay Devendrakumar Acharya vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 971 Guj