J&K High Court Upholds Removal of Civil Judge Who Took Money to Fix Judicial Department Appointments
A Division Bench of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh dismissed a writ petition filed by a Civil Judge removed from service after a Full Court inquiry found him guilty of accepting ₹2.50 lakh each from three job-seekers on the false promise of securing Class IV posts in the district judiciary.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has upheld the removal of a serving Civil Judge (Junior Division) who was found guilty, in a Full Court-directed departmental inquiry, of inducing three residents of Doda to pay ₹2.50 lakh each by falsely promising to arrange their appointments as Class IV employees in the district judiciary. The Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Parihar, dismissed WP(C) No. 2510/2022 on 31 July 2026. The court held that the petitioner had been duly served throughout the proceedings, had deliberately chosen not to participate, and could not invoke principles of natural justice after voluntarily forfeiting every opportunity to defend himself.
The Complaint and Preliminary Inquiry
Naveen Jamwal was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Munsiff on 16 March 2013. His first posting was as Munsiff/Additional Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Doda. While posted there, he allegedly approached three men — Chambail Singh, Ranjit Singh, and Rattan Singh, all residents of Doda — and offered to secure their appointment as Class IV employees in the district judiciary. He told them, according to the complaint, that the money would be passed on to senior High Court officers and members of the selection committee. Each man paid ₹2.50 lakh. No appointment came. When they sought a refund, the petitioner allegedly refused to recognise them and, on at least one occasion, drove them away from his residence at Domana, Jammu, with a threat of arrest.
A written complaint, signed by all three complainants and accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Chambail Singh, was submitted before a Judge of the High Court on 31 March 2018. The High Court directed the Registrar Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry. All three complainants appeared and gave statements. One of them also produced a compact disc (CD) said to contain a recorded conversation between complainant Ranjit Singh and the petitioner. The Registrar Vigilance, in a report dated 14 September 2018, concluded that the allegations were prima facie substantiated by the consistent statements of the complainants and the contents of the CD, and recommended a regular departmental inquiry.
The report went before the Administrative Committee on 16 October 2018, which resolved to place the matter before the Full Court. By resolution dated 27 December 2018, the Full Court ordered a regular inquiry and appointed Justice Sanjeev Kumar as Enquiry Officer, with the Registrar Vigilance as Presenting Officer.
The Departmental Inquiry and the Petitioner's Absence
Before the regular inquiry even commenced, a formal charge-sheet along with all annexures was served on the petitioner on 17 April 2019 through the process server while he was posted as Munsiff, Mahore, under the jurisdiction of the Principal District Judge, Reasi. He was given until 2 May 2019 to file a written statement of defence. He submitted neither a reply nor a request for extension.
The six articles of charge framed against him included corruption and abuse of official position while posted at Doda; demanding and receiving ₹2.50 lakh each from all three complainants on the promise of securing Class IV appointments; and failing to return the money when no appointment materialised. The charges also invoked Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, characterising his conduct as criminal misconduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.
The inquiry formally commenced on 20 August 2019, when notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 13 September 2019. He did not appear. The Enquiry Officer directed proof of service to be placed on record and issued a fresh notice for 17 October 2019. That notice was served through the Principal District Judge, Kulgam — where the petitioner was then posted as Munsiff, Qazigund — and was acknowledged by the petitioner himself on 18 September 2019. The Principal District Judge, Kulgam confirmed service by communication dated 25 September 2019. The petitioner was expressly warned that failure to appear would result in ex parte proceedings.
He remained absent on 17 October 2019. The Enquiry Officer also directed the Registrar Vigilance to communicate dates of hearing to the petitioner by telephone, WhatsApp, and e-mail. Even after these steps, the petitioner did not participate. The Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and recorded the evidence adduced by the Presenting Officer.
All three complainants appeared before the Enquiry Officer and gave depositions. Rattan Singh stated he had paid ₹2.50 lakh in two instalments — first at the Dak Bungalow, Doda, and later at the petitioner's residence at Domana — and that after the select list was published without his name, the petitioner refused to recognise him and threatened him with arrest. Ranjit Singh said he had similarly paid ₹2.50 lakh, and that the petitioner, after his transfer to Mahore, handed him a small amount towards travelling expenses but ultimately declined to return the principal. Chambail Singh deposed that the petitioner initially demanded ₹3 lakh, later reduced to ₹2.50 lakh, paid in two instalments, and that refund requests were met with abuse and refusal.
In his report dated 24 August 2021, the Enquiry Officer held all charges proved. He relied on the consistent and corroborated oral testimony of the three complainants, noted that the petitioner's conduct throughout the inquiry “has remained as one of defiance,” and concluded that the petitioner had no defence to offer and had conceded the charges by his absence. The CD, though played during the preliminary inquiry and identified by witnesses, was expressly not relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in determining culpability.
Full Court Resolution and Show-Cause Notices
The inquiry report was placed before the Full Court on the administrative side. The Full Court accepted the Enquiry Officer's findings and resolved to propose the major penalty of dismissal from service. A show-cause notice dated 15 December 2021 was issued under Rule 33 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, along with copies of the inquiry report and proceedings, requiring the petitioner to explain within fifteen days why the proposed penalty should not be imposed. The notice was served on 17 December 2021 in the presence of the Registrar Vigilance and two Registry officers. No reply was submitted.
On the directions of the Chief Justice, a reminder-cum-second show-cause notice granting seven days was issued and served on the petitioner's spouse. Again, no response was received. The Full Court, upon reconsideration, resolved by resolution dated 12 April 2022 to recommend the petitioner's removal from service. The Government accepted the recommendation and issued Government Order No. 2704-JK(LD) of 2022 dated 20 May 2022 formally removing the petitioner from service.
The Petitioner's Case Before the High Court
In the writ petition, Naveen Jamwal contended that neither the impugned order nor any charge-sheet or show-cause notice had ever been served on him, and that he had learnt of the Government order only by accessing the Law Department's website. He argued that no inquiry under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1956 had been conducted, pointing out that he had not been placed under suspension and had continued to draw his salary throughout — which, he said, showed the administration did not treat the matter as serious. He further contended that the proceedings violated Article 311 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.
On the merits of the evidence, his counsel argued that the CD had been produced without a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act; that there was no forensic examination of the recording; and that there was no direct evidence of demand, acceptance, or recovery of money. The counsel also pointed to the fact that the petitioner had been considered for promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) pursuant to a notification dated 19 November 2021, where his name appeared at Serial No. 23, and that his Annual Confidential Reports had been consistently graded as “Good.” It was additionally argued that the charges were framed nearly one and a half years after the complaint, contrary to Rule 31 of the Rules of 1956.
How the Bench Reasoned
The Division Bench examined the original record and rejected the petitioner's case across each ground.
On the question of service, the court found the record conclusive. The charge-sheet was served on 17 April 2019 through the process server. The notice for the hearing on 17 October 2019 was acknowledged by the petitioner himself on 18 September 2019, confirmed by the Principal District Judge, Kulgam. The Enquiry Officer had additionally directed communication by telephone, WhatsApp, and e-mail, which was complied with. The court found that the petitioner had “failed to produce any material to rebut the documentary record establishing due service.”
On the right to cross-examine, the bench held that the petitioner, having voluntarily abstained from the proceedings despite due service and repeated opportunities, had forfeited his right to cross-examine the witnesses. The court drew attention to the fact that the writ petition did not contain even an averment that the complainants' allegations were false, fabricated, or motivated by mala fides. The challenge rested almost entirely on procedural grounds which, on scrutiny of the original record, were found to be non-existent.
On the CD and Section 65-B, the court noted that the Enquiry Officer had not relied on the CD at all in reaching his findings. The culpability was determined solely on the oral testimony of the three complainants. The contention was therefore rejected as misconceived.
On ex parte proceedings, the bench held that the Enquiry Officer had no option but to proceed ex parte given the petitioner's deliberate non-participation, and that this course was consistent with the principles in State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, and Chairman-cum-MD, Coal India Limited v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142. The court reiterated that the rule of audi alteram partem protects a diligent litigant; it cannot be deployed as a weapon by one who, despite due notice, consciously declines to avail the opportunity afforded.
On the absence of suspension, the court was brief: suspension is not a condition precedent for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings. Whether to suspend a delinquent employee lies within the disciplinary authority's discretion and does not affect the legality of the inquiry or the punishment.
On the scope of judicial review, the bench relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484, and Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471, to hold that this Court under Article 226 does not sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary proceedings. Re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of the court's conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority is impermissible unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, vitiated by mala fides, or rendered in flagrant violation of statutory provisions or natural justice. None of those contingencies arose here.
The bench also engaged with the constitutional dimension. Referring to R.R. Parekh v. High Court of Gujarat, AIR 2016 SC 3356, the court observed that the High Court's disciplinary control over the district judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution is comprehensive, subject only to the Governor's powers in appointment, posting, and promotion. In disciplinary matters involving major penalties, the High Court conducts proceedings, records findings, and recommends punishment; the formal order imposing the penalty is passed by the Governor under Articles 233, 234, and 235. The Full Court's resolution and the subsequent Government order followed this constitutional scheme precisely.
On the gravity of the misconduct, the bench observed that the office of a Judicial Officer demands unimpeachable integrity and conduct that inspires public confidence. Allegations of accepting money on the promise of securing public employment strike at the root of judicial probity. Once such misconduct stands established in a duly conducted inquiry, the High Court under Article 235 is not only empowered but duty-bound to maintain the purity of judicial service.
Order
The Division Bench found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it. Government Order No. 2704-JK(LD) of 2022 dated 20 May 2022, removing Naveen Jamwal from service, was upheld. All connected applications were disposed of. No order as to costs was made.