HC upholds termination of judge who took bribe to acquit a POCSO accused

Bombay HC upholds termination of judicial officer in bribery case related to POCSO matter, emphasizing need for exemplary conduct among judiciary members.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) recently upheld the termination of a judicial officer implicated in a bribery case related to a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) matter.

HT Image

A division bench of justice AS Chandurkar and justice Jitendra Jain while upholding the removal order emphasised the need for exemplary conduct among judiciary members, stating, “If the members of the judiciary indulge in behaviour which is blameworthy or which is unbecoming of a judicial officer, the writ courts are not expected to intervene and grant relief to such a judicial officer.”

Pradeep Hiraman Kale, the petitioner, served as a judicial officer appointed by the Maharashtra government since 2009. However, accusations of unethical conduct surfaced against him, leading to an inquiry in July 2017. This included a charge concerning the alleged acceptance of a bribe through a peon named Harish Keer, for acquitting a POCSO accused. It was alleged that Keer initially demanded ₹3 lakh at the behest of Kale and later settled for ₹2 lakh, of which ₹40,000 was received in cash, and the rest through a cheque, to be returned after receiving cash.

Kale denied any association with Harish Keer, asserting that the acquittal order was based solely on merit. However, despite some charges being dropped on February 28, 2018, a departmental inquiry into the bribery allegation ensued. The Principal Judge of Ratnagiri was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who conducted proceedings, recorded statements from various witnesses, and allowed Kale to cross-examine them.

The Enquiry Officer’s conclusion on October 29, 2018, found insufficient evidence to implicate Kale directly, although acknowledging Keer’s involvement. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed, leading to a show-cause notice issued to Kale on July 19, 2019. Responding on August 5th, 2019, Kale refuted allegations of directing Keer’s actions.

Eventually, the Disciplinary Authority found Kale guilty of bribery charges, recommending their removal. The state subsequently issued an order on December 5, 2019, terminating Kale from government service, prompting Kale’s challenge before the court.

During the hearing, Kale argued that the authorities failed to prove the charges against them, emphasising no evidence showing Keer acted under their direction. Additionally, Kale highlighted their commendable performance record since 2009 and challenged the reliance on recorded conversations, citing legal precedents.

In contrast, the state’s counsel argued for limited judicial interference in cases such as this. They contended that Kale failed to refute the allegations, and the burden was on him to do so.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the HC upheld the termination, emphasising the limited scope of judicial review. The court noted that disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers follow the principle of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In its analysis, the court emphasised the importance of maintaining judicial integrity and public trust, stating that judicial officers are held to high ethical standards. The decision to terminate Kale’s service was deemed proportionate to safeguard the dignity and credibility of the judiciary.

Subsequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to exercise its discretion under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution. The ruling highlighted that disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers are not akin to criminal trials and must be based on the preponderance of probabilities.