High Court Upholds Dismissal of Judicial Officer in Bribery Case
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has affirmed the dismissal of a judicial officer accused of accepting bribes in a bid to secure jobs within the judiciary. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar, underscores the critical importance of integrity within the judicial system.
In the case Naveen Jamwal v High Court of J&K and Ladakh, allegations were made against Naveen Jamwal, a former civil judge, claiming he received ₹7.5 lakh from three individuals with a promise to secure them employment in the judiciary. The Court emphasized that such actions severely undermine public trust in the judicial process and violate the ethical standards expected of judicial officers.
“The credibility of the judicial institution rests not merely upon the correctness of judicial decisions but equally upon the character and rectitude of those who man it,” the Court declared in its judgment dated July 31. The Bench maintained that the High Court had a duty to recommend appropriate disciplinary action to preserve the integrity of judicial services.
Allegations and Disciplinary Inquiry
While serving in Doda in 2015, Jamwal allegedly solicited ₹2.50 lakh from each of the three individuals, promising to use his influence within the High Court and the recruitment committee to secure class IV positions for them. An inquiry initiated by the High Court substantiated these allegations, leading to Jamwal’s dismissal in 2022 on the Court’s recommendation.
In his defense, Jamwal contended that he was unaware of the disciplinary proceedings, claiming he was not served with any notice. However, the Court found that notices were duly served, and Jamwal’s failure to appear resulted in ex-parte proceedings. The Bench noted that two show-cause notices were issued prior to his dismissal.
More Read
Court’s Observations and Final Ruling
The Court highlighted that the complainants consistently testified that Jamwal had induced them to pay the bribes. Furthermore, when they sought refunds due to his unfulfilled promises, he either denied knowing them or threatened them. Jamwal did not refute these accusations in his plea and argued that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that Jamwal had ample opportunity to participate in the inquiry but chose not to.
Concluding that the disciplinary proceedings adhered to the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, the Court dismissed Jamwal’s petition. Representing the petitioner was Senior Advocate Surinder Kour, alongside Advocate Manpreet Kour. Advocate Aditya Gupta appeared for the High Court, while Senior Advocate Monika Kohli represented the State.
The decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding ethical standards and maintaining public confidence in its processes.
