HC refuses relief to judge charged with assault

The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant relief to a civil judge charged with abuse of power, and dismissed a plea challenging departmental action against him.

A Division Bench comprising Justices R.M. Sawant and S.V. Kotwal was hearing a petition filed by Civil Judge Asif Badremunir Tahasildar of Jalna, after a departmental inquiry was initiated against him as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1979. In his petition, he challenged the validity of the probe against him in the absence of a written complaint supported by an affidavit.

A complaint was forwarded to the court registrar and then placed before the disciplinary committee comprising HC judges. The committee directed the Principal District Judge at Jalna to conduct a fact-finding inquiry, based on which he was issued a show cause notice and a memo of charges and statements of imputations.

Van driver assaulted

Mr. Tahalsidar has been charged with verbally and physically abusing a school van driver named Ashok Lohar, and threatening to imprison him, all because he started the school van after waiting for the judge's daughter for five minutes. Apparently angered by the driver, Mr. Tahasildar verbally abused Mr. Lohar and assaulted him physically. When the driver tried to escape, Mr. Tahalsidar’s servant held him so he could continue assaulting him.

After the incident, Mr. Tahasildar allegedly called the driver and the school van owners, and threatened to jail them for four days on charges of attempt to murder. He alleged that they were in the van and had tried to run him over.

Mr. Tahasildar has also been charged with producing falsified documents that show his wife’s treatment incurred medical bills of more than ₹20,000, and claiming the amount as reimbursement. He allegedly inflated the amount he pays as rent as well, and claimed the increased amount as reimbursement.

Probe to continue

On July 15, 2016, the court registrar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Tahalsidar and a departmental inquiry was held. He challenged the proceedings in the HC, contending he hadn’t been granted effective opportunities to explain his position during the inquiry.

The court dismissed his plea, stating he was accorded with all available opportunities to explain himself, and that the probe against him will continue. The Bench left the charges against Mr. Tahasildar open to departmental inquiry.