Disciplinary proportionality in judicial misconduct cases: finding upheld on evidence, but dismissal replaced with compulsory retirement.

In disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer, misconduct was sustained because the record showed departure from the statutory mandate while imposing sentences below the minimum without special and adequate reasons, and the Full Court was not bound by the committee's initial view. Judicial review was limited to whether there was some legally acceptable evidence, not reappreciation of evidence, so the finding of misconduct stood. However, the punishment had to be proportionate to the proved charge. Considering the totality of circumstances and service record, dismissal was held excessive and was substituted by compulsory retirement, with the misconduct finding maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the charge of misconduct in the disciplinary inquiry was established on the basis of legally acceptable evidence and whether the Full Court could revisit the Disciplinary Committee's initial view; (ii) whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and required substitution.

Issue (i): whether the charge of misconduct in the disciplinary inquiry was established on the basis of legally acceptable evidence and whether the Full Court could revisit the Disciplinary Committee's initial view

Analysis: The High Court's control over the district judiciary under Article 235 includes disciplinary control, and a committee's recommendation in the disciplinary process is not binding on the Full Court. In judicial review of disciplinary action, the Court applies the test whether there is some legally acceptable evidence and does not reappreciate evidence as in an appeal. The record showed that the officer, while trying offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, imposed sentences below the statutory minimum without recording special and adequate reasons, and structured the sentences so that the accused would not remain in custody after set-off. The explanation offered did not adequately account for this departure from the statutory mandate.

Conclusion: The charge of misconduct was proved and the challenge to that finding failed.

Issue (ii): whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and required substitution

Analysis: The misconduct was serious, but the penalty had to be commensurate with the nature of the proved charge. Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 permitted compulsory retirement and dismissal as separate penalties. Having regard to the totality of circumstances and the officer's service record, dismissal was found to be excessive for the proved misconduct, though some major penalty remained justified.

Conclusion: The punishment of dismissal was set aside and substituted by compulsory retirement.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of modification of penalty, while the finding of misconduct was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer, a finding of misconduct may rest on circumstantial evidence showing departure from the governing statute, and though the finding may be sustained on judicial review if supported by legally acceptable evidence, the punishment must still satisfy the test of proportionality.

---