RAM MURTI YADAV VS STATE OF UP - Synopsis
RISHABH SACHDEVA 8 Jan 2020

RAM MURTI YADAV VS STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHERS 

At the time of posting as Chief Judicial Magistrate, the appellant granted the accused acquittal on 17.09.2007 in the case State vs. Mohd Ayub in compliance with the Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 420, 406 and 120B of Indian Penal Code . On the acquittal, a complaint was filed against the appellant against the acquittal. The Administrative Judge ordered an investigation after calling for input from the appellant, and after hearing the judgment and order of reversal in appeal. Vigilence Enquiry was conducted by OSD, ENQUIRY, HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD.

The appellant was adversely affected by the investigation report. His comments have been requested. The appellant was informed that a censure entry in his character roll was recorded on the basis of the inquiry.The appellant accepted the order of punishment without any challenge.  A committee of three Honorable Judges set up to screen judicial officers for compulsory retirement under the Rules recommended the appellant's compulsory retirement, endorsed by the Full Court on 14.04.2016, resulting in the impugned order of compulsory retirement.

The appellant challenged this order in High Court of Allahabad which become unsuccessfull and thus he filed his appeal in the Supreme Court of India.

On the one hand, it is pointed out that his integrity has been certified since joining his service in 1996-2013 and on another hand it is pointed out that the appellant's adverse remarks for 1996-97 were never expired because the district judge found that the explanation provided was not satisfactory.

COURT OBSERVATION

The Hon'ble SC observed that A person performing judicial duties acts in the performance of his sovereign functions on behalf of the State. Dispensing justice is not only an onerous duty, but a careerist's performance of a pious duty in another job could not be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds a public trust office. While upholding the punishment imposed on a judicial officer for compulsory retirement, the Supreme Court observed that the standard or standard for judging the judicial officer's conduct must be strict. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. 

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com