Charges Pertain More To Temperamental Issues Than Misconduct | Penalty Of Removal Strikingly Disproportionate | Bombay HC Quashes Dismissal Of Juvenile Justice Board Member
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain set aside the removal of a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), holding that the penalty imposed was grossly disproportionate to the alleged conduct. The Court quashed the State Government's order dated 22/25 September 2017 and directed that the petitioner be relieved of the stigma attached to the removal, having already borne the consequences for several years. The Court further recorded the petitioner’s statement that he was not interested in reinstatement or monetary relief. The matter was not remanded for reconsideration of penalty.
The petitioner, aged 59 and an Advocate by profession, was appointed as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mumbai, through a notification dated 18 June 2015, under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the 2007 Rules. On 16 December 2016, the Chairperson of the Board (Principal Magistrate) filed a complaint alleging misconduct and misuse of power by the petitioner. A similar complaint was also submitted to the High Court. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 23 December 2016 was issued.
The State Government, on 20 January 2017, instructed the Commissioner for Women and Child Development to constitute an inquiry committee. The committee submitted its report on 02 June 2017, which was forwarded to the State Government. The petitioner received a copy of the report and submitted his response. Based on the committee's findings and the petitioner’s reply, the State issued the removal order dated 22/25 September 2017.
The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that the procedure prescribed under the 2007 Rules, particularly Rule 92(2), was not followed. He argued that only a Selection Committee constituted under Rule 91 had the authority to inquire into such complaints and recommend removal. Since the complaint was never referred to such a body, the process was alleged to be ultra vires.
He further contended that the inquiry violated principles of natural justice, as statements of three individuals — Priya Gavade, Sandhya Ballal, and R.R. Kulkarni — were relied upon in the report without providing copies or granting an opportunity for cross-examination. The petitioner claimed to have received these statements only after his removal.
Dr. Warunjikar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the inquiry findings did not constitute misconduct or justify removal. He described the penalty as excessive and disproportionate, particularly as the petitioner, a senior citizen, had no interest in reinstatement or financial claims and was concerned solely with the attached stigma.
Ms. Kantharia, representing the State, argued that the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules were inapplicable at the time of removal in September 2017, as they had been repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which came into effect from 15 January 2016. She maintained that the 2018 Rules under the 2015 Act were also not applicable at the time of removal. Nevertheless, she asserted that the State Government was the competent authority under the 2015 Act to order removal.
According to the State, the committee had been duly appointed by the Government, and the removal order was passed only after receiving and considering the petitioner’s response. It was argued that no demand for cross-examination had been made, and no prejudice had been demonstrated. The State also cited serious allegations such as private preparation of a rubber stamp for official use, lack of full attendance, and unauthorised admission of law students into Observation Homes.
The Court observed that "the petitioner was appointed as a Member of JJB on 18 June 2015... governed by the 2000 Act, read with the 2007 Rules". However, since the 2015 Act had come into force by 15 January 2016, and the petitioner was removed on 22/25 September 2017, "the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules do not apply".
It stated, "the Petitioner cannot fault the impugned action on the ground that the Selection Committee did not conduct the inquiry against the Petitioner constituted under Rule 91", as those provisions were no longer applicable.
Regarding the natural justice claim, the Court recorded that while the statements of Priya Gawade, Sandhya Ballal, and R.R. Kulkarni were relied upon, "there is no record of such statements being furnished to the Petitioner during the inquiry or before the inquiry report was made". The petitioner’s explanation that he only learned of these after receiving the report was noted. However, "apart from vaguely alleging a violation of natural justice, no specific objection was taken about the deprivation of opportunity for cross-examination".
The Court remarked, "adverse material must be furnished to the member proceeded against... Still, there is nothing like a mere technical breach of principles of natural justice. The party alleging failure of natural justice must plead and establish prejudice." On facts, it found that no significant prejudice was shown.
As to the substance of the charges, the Court examined the committee’s findings:
(a) That the Petitioner was not devoting his full time to the work of the JJB.
(b) The Petitioner prepared his own rubber stamp instead of getting the rubber stamp prepared from the office.
(c) The Petitioner did not obtain prior permission before permitting law students to visit the Observation Home.
(d) The Petitioner invited 30 to 35 students and "sat on chair of the Chairman".
(e) The Petitioner made some allegations against the Magistrate and suggested her transfer.
The Court stated, "there are no details in the charge or the findings recorded by the committee" about the petitioner’s alleged failure to attend full working hours. It also found that "no allegations about the Petitioner misusing the rubber stamp or that the Petitioner was disentitled to use a rubber stamp" existed.
With regard to the student visit, the Court noted, "the Petitioner was a lecturer, and if he felt that the law students should be acquainted with the functioning of the JJB... there was nothing prima facie wrong." However, "prior permission should have been obtained". Still, it found the incident not to amount to "serious misconduct".
On the issue of the petitioner sitting on the Chairperson’s seat, the Court observed, "we do not think that this should be regarded as serious misconduct... No details of the 'personal benefit' derived... were brought to our notice."
Overall, the Court found that "the charges pertain more to temperamental issues than misconduct or misuse of power". It concluded, "the penalty of removal appears to be grossly disproportionate... At the highest, some warning could have been issued... There were no allegations of any corruption or harassment".
The Court directed, "This Petition is accordingly disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 22/25 September 2017". It added, "The Rule is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs".
The Bench further noted, "any further penalty or remand for deciding on the quantum of punishment is not called for in the peculiar facts of the present case". The petitioner, a senior citizen and professional, had already "foregone his nine months' emoluments, sitting fees, etc." and "borne the stigma of removal for the last 7 to 8 years". The Court found no basis for continued stigma.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Mr. Aditya Kharkar, Mr. Jenish Jain
For the Respondents: Ms. P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader for State
Case Title: Dipak Kumar Chattopadhyay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC: OS:9758-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 428 of 2018
Bench: Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain
