New Delhi, Mar 24 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the dismissal order 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 Manmohan and Saurabh Banerjee said no case of leniency calling for reduction of 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 thus the penalty imposed is "commensurate" to the charge.

Also Read | Germany’s Scholz Says EU Banking System ‘stable’.

"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 bench said.

The high court's order came on a petition by a judicial officer with the DHJS challenging the penalty of dismissal of service in November 2021 following the decision of the full court of the Delhi High Court. He sought to set aside the dismissal order and reinstatement with complete exoneration, arrears along with other consequential benefits of continuity of service.

Also Read | New Delhi Beautification Project: Nearly 250 Artistic-shaped Flowers Installed in National Capital.

The bench said the moot facts before it reveal the acceptance of payment was indeed from a 'stranger', and the same is, without fail, unbecoming of a judicial officer, especially when he is officiating as such.

"The post of a judicial officer is a coveted one with responsibilities attached to it. A judicial officer is expected to be unceremonious and not take things in an easy manner. A judicial officer is expected to be more prudent. At the end of the day 'A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged'," the bench said.

It said that the petitioner has failed to establish his case or defence either before the inquiry officer or before this court.

"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 arose when the former judicial officer had 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 qua the hotel bookings abroad 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 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, before the high court, claimed 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 for discharge of his duties and it was not a case of quid pro quo.

The bench, in its verdict, said, "... As regards the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the misconduct considering the past service record of the petitioner, in the opinion of this court, 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 thus the penalty imposed is commensurate to the charge."

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)