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.