Delhi High Court upholds dismissal of judicial officer who accepted international hotel bookings from unknown person

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to interfere with an order dismissing a judicial officer from service for accepting hotel bookings by an unknown person for a trip abroad [Naveen Arora v. High Court of Delhi]. .Justices Manmohan and Saurabh Banerjee found that acceptance of payment from a “stranger” was unbecoming of a judicial officer, as the post was coveted and had responsibilities attached to it. “A Judicial Officer is expected to be unceremonious and not take things in an easy manner. A Judicial Officer is expected to be more prudent. At the end of the day “A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged”, read the judgment. .The Bench found that the judicial officer accepted the bookings from a “stranger” and that the same was not reasonably explained. This was sufficient for him to be held guilty. “Such acceptance can be in any form and need not always be quid pro quo and/or direct.”.The issue arose when the judicial officer travelled abroad along with his family. On his return, discrepancies were found in documents submitted by him to the High Court with regard to hotel bookings. One Shyam Sunder Bajaj was found to have made payments towards his bookings..This led to the appointment of an inquiry officer and initiation of proceedings against the judge. An inquiry report was filed, which was followed by an order of the Full Court dismissing the judicial officer from service. .Before the High Court, the judicial officer claimed there was no malafide on his part, as he did not withhold information about the payments. He also stated that he owed money to a friend and client of his younger brother for the bookings. He submitted that he had offered money to the client in exchange for the hotel bookings before leaving for the trip. The person had assured him that he would accept the money only on their return, but later refused to accept the money. It was further contended that the petitioner had not accepted a favour for discharge of his duties and it was not a case of quid pro quo. Even otherwise, the person in question was residing in Singapore and there was no situation in which the petitioner could oblige him..The Court began by recording that the inquiry officer had all followed principles of natural justice at all stages. .Additionally, the Bench noted that the judicial officer had failed to give a material response to repeated queries put by the High Court since the inception. “There are too many negatives which, unfortunately, do not add up to make a positive.”.Further examining the facts, the Court said that the petition neither inspired confidence nor appeals to reason.“The present is not a case of no evidence or perverse findings or that the findings arrived at by the Officer shock the conscience of the Court or such where there have been any procedural irregularities. On the contrary, the conclusion arrived by the Officer is well-reasoned and well-supported and plausible in the eyes of the law.”.Therefore, on finding that there were multiple reasons tilting the balance against the judicial officer, the Court said it had little left to ponder over. .The Bench also rejected the argument that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct considering the past service record of the petitioner.“Considering the post of a Judicial Officer held by the petitioner, the charge of accepting money in the nature of a favour from a stranger is in itself serious and thus the penalty imposed is commensurate to the charge. We are afraid, no case of leniency calling for reduction of penalty imposed is made out,” the order reasoned..Senior Advocate Mukul Talwar along with Advocates Ankur Chhibber, Rajesh Sachdeva, Shobha Gupta, Vineet Budhiraja, Vivek Singh and Apurva appeared for the judicial officer while the High Court was represented by Advocates Rajat Aneja and Aditi Shastri..[Read Order]