#News #Latest #trending #india
New Delhi. Special Correspondent The Supreme Court has termed the allegations by a judicial officer of Madhya Pradesh of urinating on the floor in a train coach, creating ruckus and performing obscene acts in front of a female co-passenger as ‘disgusting acts’. The apex court orally said that the judicial officer’s conduct was misconduct of the most serious kind and he should have been dismissed. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made this comment while staying the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer dismissed for urinating on the floor of a train coach, creating ruckus and performing obscene acts in front of a female co-passenger.
The bench said that this case in itself is shocking and the conduct of the officer was despicable. Justice Mehta said that ‘the officer urinated in the compartment! A woman was present there. The Supreme Court has made this comment while issuing notice on the appeal filed by the Registrar General of Madhya Pradesh High Court against the decision of a two-judge bench of the High Court. The bench issued notice to the judicial officer and the Madhya Pradesh government. In appeal, the High Court’s decision has been challenged. During the hearing of the case, the advocate appearing for the said judicial officer told the bench that as per the medical examination report, his client was not drunk at the time of the incident. According to the petition filed in the top court, the judicial officer was a civil judge (Class-II) in Madhya Pradesh, who was dismissed in 2018 over the ruckus in the train.
He was also accused of misbehaving with co-passengers while drunk and abusing the TTE (a government employee on duty), performing obscene acts in front of a female passenger and urinating on the seat. There was also an allegation of threatening co-passengers by showing them their identity cards. Following this incident, two parallel proceedings (criminal and departmental) were initiated against the said judicial officer. After his arrest in the criminal case, he got bail, but did not inform his controlling officer. Ultimately, in the criminal proceedings, he was acquitted because the witnesses (which included the TTE and the victim passenger) turned hostile. However, in the departmental proceedings, several people testified about the judicial officer’s obscene conduct, abuse of authority and obstruction of a government servant. The judicial officer was dismissed from his job after being found guilty in the departmental inquiry. The judicial officer filed a petition against this in the High Court.
The High Court accepted the petition and canceled the dismissal order of the judicial officer. Now the High Court administration has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court. The petition states that the conduct of the respondent (judicial officer) at the time of the incident was unbecoming of a judicial officer. Moreover, the incident was widely reported, tarnishing the sanctity of the entire judiciary. The petition emphasizes that the standard of proof for criminal proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt, whereas for departmental proceedings it is preponderance of probabilities.
