मध्य प्रदेश हाई कोर्ट ने उमरिया कोर्ट के सिविल जज और मजिस्ट्रेट के खिलाफ हुई शिकायत का संज्ञान लिया. Initiated Disciplinary Investigation Against Judicial officers

 नियम से काम नहीं करने पर हाई कोर्ट विजिलेंस जाँच शुरू , उमरिया कोर्ट में सुप्रीम कोर्ट के दिशा निर्देशों का धड़ल्ले से उल्हंगन हो रहा था. 

जिला जज के हाथ बंधे थे क्योकि हाई कोर्ट को ही कार्यवाही का अधिकार. 

 जानबूझ कर नियम तोड़कर आदेश पारित हो रहे थे और सुप्रीम कोर्ट के सम्मान को ठेस पहुंच रही थी। 

 सपन श्रीवास्तव की शिकायत पर मध्य प्रदेश हाई कोर्ट ने संज्ञान लिया. 

VIGILANCE AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT INITIATED ENQUIRY ON COMPLAINT AGAINST CIVIL JUDGE AND DLSA SECRETARY RAJESH TIWARI AND JMFC ABHISHEK KUMAR OF UMARIA COURT.

Jabalpur: In the complaint of judicial impropriety and misconduct the vigilance and inspection department  of MP High Court has taken cognizance on complaint against 2 judicial officers of Umaria. Important allegation was that the Civil judge and DLSA secretary Shri Rajesh Tiwari was passing orders without backing of law and disposing PLA matters arbitrary with omission of facts. To support well-wisher he was obstructing the filing of Misc Application in disposed matters as per provisions of Hon'ble Supreme court rulings. He also stopped judicial hearing since Feb 2021 without assigning proper reason and delayed the justice . 

Second complaint was against JMFC Abhishek Kumar that he is passing order by willful omitting important exhibits to save well-wishers police officers who are accused for violation of Lalitha Kumari guidelines and not registering FIR in cognizable offence. He was also using mobile phones during judicial hours and leaving seat in court timing to attend personal calls and ignoring party in persons. He was also misbehaving party in persons (Officer Of The Court)and talking roughly violating Supreme court guidelines in C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee [1995 SCC (5) 45]. He is also assigning long dates in CRPC 156 (3) matters  in which FIR is mandatary in 15 days time limit. Recently he has done violation of Hon'ble DJ order by passing adverse order during lockdown without hearing. He delibrately ignored virtual hearing request and passed order without hearing.In a matter filed on 9 April 2021 he assigned date of 2 June 2021 as per roznama for 1st hearing. But on 6 May 2021 he passed back dated order with date 9 April 2021 and dissmissed CRPC 156 complaint without hearing. He also made fake attendence of complainant in order. In 2 hours matter is filed and disposed without any hearing. 

It shows lack of impartiality and integrity in behaviour of Judicial officer. So as per KK Dhawan (Supra) guidelines High Court taken cognizance on complaint of Sapan Shrivastava. Soon high court will conduct inspection as per their procedures.

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Alakh Sinha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 11 March, 2004 

Equivalent citations: 2005 (1) MPHT 124 

Author: A Mishra 

Bench: A Mishra 

 

14. The decision in K.K. Dhawan (supra) has been considered in P.C. Joshi v. State of UP. and Ors. , AIR 2001 SC 2788. The Apex Court has laid down that the test to be adopted in the case of judicial officer in Departmental Enquiry in Para 5 thus :- 

"5. The test to be adopted in such case is as stated by this Court in the cases of Union of India v. A.N. Saxena, (1992) 3 SCC 124: (1992 AIR SCW 1336 : AIR 1992 SC 1333) and Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 : AIR 1993 SC 1478. In K.K Dhawan's case (supra), this Court indicated the basis upon which a disciplinary action can be initiated in respect of a judicial or a quasi judicial action as follows :- 

(i) where the judicial officer has conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; 

(ii) that there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; 

(iii) that if he has acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; 

(iv) that if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; 

(v) that if he had been actuated by corrupt motive