Allahabad High Court upholds dismissal of District Judge accused of dowry demand and trying to influence junior judge

If there exists a temple of justice, judicial officers must act like its high priests, the Allahabad High Court said while upholding the dismissal of a judicial officer accused of dowry demand and attempting to influence a junior judge in a personal case [Umesh Kumar Sirohi vs State of UP and Another]..A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh said any transgression committed by a judicial officer to extract benefit for himself or those to whom he may be closely related, would always be dealt with severely.It added that a judicial officer who defiles his office merits no mercy.“Once the ‘bad fish’ is identified, it may not be retained in the ‘tank’. No room may ever exist and no margin of error may be permitted as may allow any possibility for a judicial officer to seek to influence another judicial officer, in exercise of judicial function. If there exists a temple of justice, judicial officers must act like its high priests who must not only conduct the rituals involving discharge of their duties on the dais but they must zealously guard the purity of the temple itself,” the Court said..The Court was hearing a writ petition moved by former Additional District & Sessions Judge Umesh Kumar Sirohi who was issued two chargesheets by the administrative side of the High Court in 2016 and 2017. In the first chargesheet, he was accused of demanding dowry for the marriage of his brother (also a judge) and inflicting an injury on his own hand as a conspiracy to implicate his brother’s wife and her family. Sirohi’s wife had registered a police complaint in this regard against the sister-in-law and her family members, leading to registration of a case against them. Another allegation against Sirohi and his brother was that they had tried to influence the investigating officer in the matter by misusing their official position..In the second charge sheet, it was alleged that Sirohi had tried to influence an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the proceedings of the case registered by his wife. He was also accused of making false allegations of bias against the then District Judge, Meerut. In 2020, the full court of the High Court accepted the inquiry reports against Sirohi and recommended his dismissal from service. The State accepted the recommendation, leading to present challenge..After hearing the arguments and examining the records, the Court concluded that a case of most serious misconduct had been made out against Sirohi.The Court noted that charges alleging efforts to influence the investigating officer and demand of dowry were found proved.With respect to the case lodged by Sirohi's wife, the Court said no material had been produced to doubt the "allegation of exaggeration of the real occurrence".“The disciplinary inquiry in Departmental Inquiry No. 21 of 2015 is found to be fair and proper and conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Judge 'A', based on material and evidence collected during that Inquiry, with which the petitioner had been confronted. Also, that material cannot be described as extraneous or irrelevant,” the Court said..With regard to the another inquiry against him, the Court said enough material was brought on record to show that Sirohi had made efforts to influence another judicial officer during the course of a judicial proceeding. “It must be recorded that in the course of his cross examination, the petitioner admitted having called the ACJM on telephone, through ‘I’ the lawyer representing the petitioner’s wife in the case giving rise to the misconduct,” the order stated..While dismissing Sirohi’s petition, the Court said,“The inviolable code of conduct and self-restraint to be always maintained by any human being who may ever come to occupy a judicial office, is seen clearly and irreparably violated, by the petitioner. In committing that transgression, the petitioner earned absolute demerit. It rendered him unfit to hold judicial office, any further. As with the mythological ‘Shishupal’, so with the petitioner, he made that ‘one’ transgression that could not be spared.”.Senior Advocate Ashok Khare and Advocate Aditendra Singh represented the petitioner.Advocate Ashish Mishra represented the High Court.Additional Chief Standing Counsel Nimai Das represented the State.[Read Judgment]