SC upholds dismissal of judicial officer who accepted hotel booking from stranger for foreign trip

New Delhi, Jul 6 (PTI) The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a judicial officer with the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) for accepting hotel booking from a stranger for a trip abroad.

A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal refused to entertain the appeal filed by the sacked judicial officer challenging the high court order refusing to interfere with the dismissal order.

“We do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed,” the bench said.

The judicial officer had approached the apex court against March 23 order of the high court.

The high court had said no case of leniency calling for reduction of the penalty imposed is made out, and 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 the penalty imposed is “commensurate” with the charge.

“We are afraid, no case of leniency calling for reduction of penalty imposed is made out. Having held that there is hardly any scope of interference by this court, the present petition is not maintainable either in law and/ or facts. Accordingly, finding no need to traverse upon the factual matrix/ aspects, involved any further and finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is thus dismissed… ,” the high court said.

The high court’s order came on the petition by Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) judicial officer challenging the penalty of dismissal of service in November 2021 following a decision of the full court of the Delhi High Court. He sought setting aside of the dismissal order and reinstatement with complete exoneration, arrears besides other consequential benefits of continuity of service.

“That there was an acceptance from a ‘stranger’ is admitted and that it is not reasonably explained, is sufficient for the petitioner to be held guilty. Such acceptance can be in any form and need not always be quid pro quo and/or direct. Unfortunately, the present petition neither inspires confidence nor appeals to reason,” the bench said.

The issue came to light when the former judicial officer applied for requisite permission for travelling abroad with his family, and upon his return in June 2016, he submitted documents to the high court.

Noticing few discrepancies with regard to the hotel bookings made by an unknown person, the high court called for explanation from the petitioner, which led to exchange of letters between them.

Being unsatisfied, the high court issued a memorandum to him containing the ‘statement of article of charge’. Later an inquiry was initiated against the officer and an inquiry report was filed which was followed by an order of the full court dismissing the judicial officer from service.

The judicial officer claimed before the high court there was no mala fide on his part as as he did not withhold information about the payments, and said that he owed money to a friend and client of his younger brother for the bookings.

He said he had offered money to the client in exchange for the hotel bookings before leaving for the trip and the person had assured him that he would accept the money only on their return, but later refused to take it.

The former officer said he had not accepted a favour in respect of discharge of his duties and it was not a case of quid pro quo.