The Allahabad high court recently upheld the dismissal of a court employee found guilty of manipulating a convicted prisoner’s age in the judicial record to enable him to claim the benefit of a government scheme for the release of elderly prisoners.
In January 2000, the state government introduced a scheme for the release of prisoners who had undergone more than 3 years of imprisonment and were above 60 years of age.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, in his order dated November 2, observed that manipulating the age in a judicial record amounts to serious misconduct as it constitutes “direct interference with the administration of justice”.
The bench passed the order while dealing with the plea filed by the petitioner (Seema Sharma) challenging the October 2010 order passed by the administrative judge.
The said order had enhanced the punishment imposed on her by the district judge, Muzaffarnagar, from stoppage of one increment for two years to dismissal from service.
The petitioner had allegedly manipulated the judicial record of the 1977 Sessions Trial in which one Juber had been convicted for murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment by a judgment passed in November 1978.
For determining eligibility under the scheme, the prisoner’s age was to be ascertained based on the age mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC.
{{/usCountry}}For determining eligibility under the scheme, the prisoner’s age was to be ascertained based on the age mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC.
{{/usCountry}}The original judicial record mentioned Juber’s age as 19 years when his statement was recorded. However, in an answer to a questionnaire dated September 13, 2000, Sharma manipulated the record and mentioned his age as 38 years.
It was later found that the prisoner’s age recorded in the Section 313 CrPC statement had been manipulated and that time Sharma was incharge of the file.
After the inquiry, the district judge, Muzaffarnagar, imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment for two years under Rule 4(d) of the UP Subordinate Court Staff Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1976.
However, when Sharma challenged the punishment before the Administrative Judge, the appellate authority considered the charges serious and issued a show-cause notice proposing enhancement of the punishment to dismissal from service.
After considering her reply, the administrative judge, by an order passed in October 2010, enhanced the punishment to dismissal from service while dismissing her appeal.