1

    REPORTABLE

        IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CIVIL APPEAL NO.  7306    OF 2019              (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33818/2015)      

SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMARE            APPELLANT(S)

                    VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.     RESPONDENT(S)   

J U D G M E N T

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellant  was  a  Judicial  Officer.  He  was

appointed as a Judicial Magistrate on 01.03.1985.  On

08.02.2001, he was put under suspension and dismissed

from service on 15.01.2004.  The appellant challenged

his writ petition filed before the High Court.  The

same  was  dismissed.   Notice   was  issued  in  the

special leave petition on 14.12.2015 limited to the

question of quantum of punishment. The only issue to

be decided is whether the punishment imposed upon him

is justified or  a lenient view can be taken in the

matter.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our

attention  to  the  relevant  provisions  of  the

2

Maharashtra  Civil  Services  (Discipline  and  Appeal)

Rules, 1979, especially Rule ‘5’ thereof.  We are

concerned  with  the  portion  dealing  with  major

penalties, which reads as follows:

“Major Penalties -

(vii)  compulsory retirement;

(viii) removal from Service which shall not  be  a  disqualification  for  future employment under Government;  

(ix)  dismissal from Service which shall ordinarily  be  a  disqualification  for future employment under Government:

Provided that, in every case in which the charge of acceptance from any person of any  gratification,  other  than  legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act is established, the penalty mentioned in  clause  (viii)  or  (ix)  shall  be imposed;

Provided further that, in any exceptional case and for special reasons recorded in writing any other penalty may be imposed”

4. Emphasis  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant  is on the first proviso wherein it is

stated  that  if  an  employee   is  held  guilty  of

accepting  gratification  other  than  legal

remuneration,  as  a  motive  or  reward  for  doing  or

forbearing  to  do  any  official  act,  the  penalty

3

mentioned  in  clause  (viii)  or  (ix),  i.e.,  removal

from  service  or  dismissal  from  service  shall  be

imposed.  

5. We are only concerned with the issue of penalty

and we need not go into the entire gamut of facts.

However, for the purpose of deciding this appeal, it

would  be  necessary  to  mention  the  core  allegation

made against the appellant.  The allegation was that

he had a proximate   relationship with a lady lawyer

and  due  to  this  relationship  he  passed  certain

judicial orders in favour of her clients, including

her  mother  and  brother  when  they  were  parties  to

certain  proceedings.   Those  findings  of  fact  have

been upheld by all courts and even  this Court has

not interfered with  those findings and issued notice

limited to the quantum of punishment.  

6. The  first  and  foremost  quality  required  in  a

Judge is integrity.  The need of integrity in the

judiciary is much higher than in other institutions.

The judiciary is an institution whose foundations are

based on honesty and integrity.  It is, therefore,

necessary that judicial officers should possess the

sterling quality of integrity.  This Court in Tarak

Singh  v.  Jyoti  Basu  [(2005)  1  SCC  201]  held  as

4

follows:-

“Integrity  is  the  hallmark  of judicial  discipline,  apart  from others.   It  is  high  time  the judiciary  took  utmost  care  to  see that the temple of justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to a  catastrophe  in  the  judicial- delivery  system  resulting  in  the failure of public confidence in the system.  It must be remembered that woodpekers  inside  pose  a  larger threat than the storm outside.”

7. The behavior of a Judge has to of an exacting

standard, both inside and outside the Court.  This

Court in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad and

Others [(1987) 3 SCC 1] held thus:

“Judicial Officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and other outside the court.  They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity.  They cannot act  even  remotely  unworthy  of  the office they occupy.”

8. Judges are also public servants.  A Judge should

always  remember  that  he  is  there  to  serve  the

public.  A Judge is judged not only by his quality

of judgments but also by the quality and purity of

his  character.   Impeccable  integrity  should  be

reflected  both  in  public  and  personal  life  of  a

5

Judge.   One  who  stands  in  judgments  over  others

should be incorruptible.  That is the high standard

which is expected of Judges.

9. Judges must remember that they are not merely

employees but hold high public office.  In R. C.

Chandel v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh [(2012) 8

SCC  58],  this  Court  held  that  the  standard  of

conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than that

of an ordinary person.  The following observations

of this Court are relevant:

“37. Judicial  service  is  not  an ordinary  government  service  and  the Judges  are  not  employees  as  such. Judges hold the public office; their function  is  one  of  the  essential functions of the State.  In discharge of  their  functions  and  duties,  the Judges  represent  the  State.   The office  that  a  Judge  holds  is  an office of public trust.  A Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and  unimpeachable  independence.   He must be honest to the core with high moral values.  When a litigant enters the  courtroom,  he  must  feel  secure that Judge before whom his matter has come,  would  deliver  justice impartially  and  uninfluenced  by  any consideration.   The  standard  of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man.  This is no excuse that since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society cannot be  expected  to  have  high  standards and  ethical  firmness  required  of  a Judge.  A Judge like Caesar’s wife,

6

must  be  above  suspicion.   The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and rule of law to survive, judicial system and the  judicial  process  have  to  be strong and every Judge must discharge his  judicial  functions  with integrity,  impartially  and intellectual honesty.”

10. There can be no manner of doubt that a judge

must decide the case only on the basis of the facts

on record and the law applicable to the case.  If a

judge decides a case for any extraneous reasons then

he  is  not  performing  his  duty  in  accordance  with

law.

11. In our view the word ‘gratification’ does not

only mean monetary gratification.  Gratification can

be of various types.  It can be gratification of

money, gratification of power, gratification of lust

etc.,etc.   In  this  case  the  officer  decided  the

cases because of his proximate relationship with a

lady lawyer and not because the law required him to

do so.  This is also gratification of a different

kind.

12. The Judicial Officer concerned did not live upto

the expectations of integrity, behavior and probity

7

expected of him.  His conduct is as such that no

leniency can be shown and he cannot be visited with

a lesser punishment.   

13. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal, which is

accordingly, dismissed.

                                  ..................J.                        [ DEEPAK GUPTA ]

                                                           ...................J.                               [ ANIRUDDHA BOSE ]

            NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 16, 2019.