Pathak, who was suspended in 1999 as Additional Sessions Judge of Godhra, had to face two enquiries by the Disciplinary Committee of the Gujarat high court.
A bench of the Gujarat high court on Friday reinstated in service the additional sessions judge, SJ Pathak, who was suspended on corruption charges 10 years back and later dismissed after an enquiry. The order reinstating the judge was passed by a bench comprising chief justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice Anant Dave.
Pathak, who was suspended in 1999 as Additional Sessions Judge of Godhra, had to face two enquiries by the Disciplinary Committee of the Gujarat high court. He was accused of ignoring principles of law in granting bail to the accused, taking illegal gratification, acts of grave misconduct and of acts tantamount to conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.
In 2006, the enquiry officer had found that there was no material evidence against Pathak of his alleged corrupt practices and misconduct. But the Disciplinary Committee headed by Justice BJ Shethna did not accept the enquiry officer's findings and issued a show-cause notice to Pathak.
When Pathak replied to the notice, the Chamber Committee Meeting (a meeting of all judges of the high court) entrusted the case to the high court Disciplinary Committee headed by Justice ND Nandi. The Nandi committee upheld the report of the enquiry officer.
It was then decided at another Chamber Committee Meeting to entrust the case again to the Disciplinary Committee headed by Justice Shethna. The Shethna committee issued the order dismissing Pathak from service.
Shalin Mehta, counsel for Pathak, submitted that the enquiry officer had clearly stated that there was no basis for the charges levelled against him. The complaints were general in nature and there was no justification for initiating disciplinary proceedings on the basis of anonymous complaints sent by disgruntled persons.
The high court bench on Friday also criticised the view taken at the Chamber Committee Meeting. "No reasons were stated by the high court (Chamber Committee) in disagreeing with the report submitted by the committee headed by Justice Nandi," the judges said.
The bench further observed that it had made a "serious error in entrusting the enquiry to the earlier committee headed by Justice Sethna, which had already pre-judged the issue. The decision of the high court is, therefore, vitiated by non-application of mind as well as legal and factual bias."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}