A woman judge of the lower court was not found to be fit to remain in the judiciary by the Supreme Court for “gross misconduct” of being a habitual traveller without ticket in Mumbai’s local trains and when caught by the railway officials instead showing remorse she tried to assert her position by threatening them.
The assertion of Judge Arundhati Ashok Walavalkar to railway officials that a judicial magistrate “need not have a ticket” when caught without ticket for the third time, was termed by the apex court as “shocking and unbecoming” of a judicial officer while dismissing her petition against the Bombay high court decision forcing her to take compulsory retirement.
She not only travelled without tickets thrice but also complained against the ticket collectors who accosted her, misbehaved with them and in those circumstances, we do not see how the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to her could be disproportionate to the offence,” a bench of Justices M.K. Sharma and A.R. Dave held.
The apex court said that an independent inquiry conducted by the HC had found the charges of railway absolutely correct against Walavalkar. She was caught travelling without ticket on three different dates — February 21, May 13 and December 5 — in 1997 and on the last occasion when caught, “misused her official identity card for making unnecessary scene on the platform threatening railway officials.”
“This is a case of judicial officer who was required to conduct herself with dignity and manner becoming of a judge. A judge must be able to discharge his/her responsibilities by showing an impeccable conduct... In a country governed by the rule of law, no body is above it, including the judicial officers,” the top court observed.
“If the rule of law is to function effectively and efficiently in our democratic set-up, the judges are, nay, they must nurture an efficient and enlightened judiciary by presenting themselves as a role model,” the apex court in a strongly worded verdict said.
“The judges are constantly under public glaze and the society expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from them. A judicial office, being an office of public trust, the society is entitled to expect that he/she must be a person of high integrity, honesty and ethical firmness and maintain the most exacting standards of propriety in every action...”
“Therefore, a judge’s official and personal conduct must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity attached to the office. Obviously, this standard is higher than any the other official,” the Supreme Court recorded.