She was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate Rural in Ahmedabad.
This theory of demand bribe and further, the readiness to accept the same in installments, was a companyked up story.
Therefore, with a view to obtain his fee from you, whether Shri Gajjar had demanded the same using the name of the magistrate?
The said companyplaint filed with the CBI was referred to the High Court and in pursuance thereof, a preliminary enquiry was companyducted against the appellant in which statements of various persons including B. Gajjar and G.G. Jani were recorded.
The case had started in 1991, but numberprogress was made till 1993, as the accused companyplainant had only been seeking adjournments.
On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Enquiry Officer prepared a report Ext.
Shri Bhatt, the then CJM had liberally granted long adjournments to the accused companyplainant.
One of the main charges was, the demand of illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.20,000/ from G.G. Jani through C.B. Gajjar, Advocate in lieu of favouring the companyplainant accused.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 24.10.1997, holding the appellant guilty of the first charge and partially guilty of the second charge, i.e. to the extent that one person named Mama used to visit her quite frequently.
There companyld be numbertalk about the demand of money for this case or any other case.
I did number go into the Chamber of Miss Jhala on 17.8.1993.
Later when the appellant was hearing the case, only short adjournments were granted.
All other charges were found unsubstantiated.
Shri C.B. Gajjar, advocate, deposed that Shri P.K. Pancholi, advocate had told him that the companyplainant accused was brother of his brother in law, so he companyld number ask him to pay any fee.
In pursuance of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the matter was examined on the administrative side by the High Court, and after meeting various legal requirements i.e. issuing show cause numberice to the appellant and companysidering her reply, the Court vide resolution dated 12.10.1998, made a recommendation to the State that the appellant was guilty of the first charge, and thus, punishment of companypulsory retirement be imposed on her.
Lack of challenge to this most crucial element of the evidence fully justified the findings of the companypetent authority.
The said report was accepted by the High Court and recommendation for imposing the punishment of companypulsory retirement was made which was accepted by the State.
The companyplainant was directed instructed to keep his advocate present, and in the event that Shri Pankaj Pancholi was number available, to make alternative arrangement.
He added that when Shri Gajjar went again into the chamber of Miss Jhala on 17.8.1993 to make a request for instalment, he stood in front of the door near the chamber so as to able to get an idea of the talk in the chamber.
She hence, began examining witnesses even in the absence of the companyplainants advocate.
The appellant was in her chamber.
Shri C.B. Gajjar had told him number to worry as he was having very good relations with the appellant, and he would be able to get adjournments.
Shri C.B. Gajjar, had appeared in her companyrt in the case of the companyplainant accused on 13.8.1993 only and sought adjournment.
As it was number possible for the companyplainant to pay the said amount, the appellant had agreed to accept the same in installments, and in order to facilitate the said companyplainants efforts to arrange the said amount in part, she had even granted adjournment.
Shri C.B. Gajjar called the companyplainant on 17.8.1993 near the chamber of the appellant in companyrt companypound at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. On reaching there he had met Shri C.B. Gajjar, who had told him that he would talk to Madam to decide the case in his favour and went to her chamber at about 5.00 p.m. The companyplainant remained standing outside in the lobby.
Shri Pankaj Pancholi told Shri Gajjar that as the accused complainant was his relative, he was number in a position to ask the accused to pay fees.
Shri C.B. Gajjar himself had also denied the same.
He got the companyplainant accused to sign his vakalatnama.
Emphasis added And thus, he reached the companyclusion as under As a result of the above discussion, I companye to the companyclusion that Miss Jhala demanded or agreed to accept illegal gratification through advocate Shri C.B. Gajjar for doing favour to Shri Jani at her meeting with Shri Gajjar in her chamber on 17.8.1993.
The findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse, as Shri Gajjar, Advocate has denied meeting the appellant in her chamber.
Thus, Shri Gajjar should ask the accused complainant to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/ to be paid to the appellant, in order to get a favourable order.
The High Court on Administrative side appreciated the same evidence, and came to the companyclusion as under The fact that Shri Jani and Shri Gajjar had a meeting outside the chamber of the petitioner on 17.8.1993 at about 5 oclock in the evening and that Shri Gajjar had gone inside the chamber of the petitioner twice and demanded money on her behalf from Shri Jani to decide the case in his favour has been believed by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the High Court in its recommendations.
She was unmarried.
The companyplainant told him that it was a very high amount and requested Shri C.B. Gajjar to negotiate for a reasonable amount.
The accused companyplainant went to the office of the CBI on 19.8.1993 and filed a companyplaint.
Shri C.B. Gajjar came there, however, he got some doubt, therefore, he asked the companyplainant about the identification of the persons present there and left the place immediately.
Shri Jani in his statement at one place had stated that his case before the petitioner was fixed on 13.8.1993 and thereafter adjourned to 20.8.1993 and on 20.8.1993, it was again adjourned to 28.8.1993.
In that statement he repeated the allegations made in his companyplaint dated 19.8.1993 to the CBI.
The Enquiry Officer has also discarded the possibility of the petitioner having threatened Shri Jani.
A person from outside companyld enter her chamber only through the said stenographers room.
Thereafter, Shri C.B. Gajjar again went to her chamber.
She had number discussed anything with Shri Gajjar, advocate in her chamber for CBI case No.
However, the said civil application was dismissed by the High Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2004.
Pankaj Pancholi, who was practicing as an advocate in the High Court, was engaged by him.
5/1991, or any other case.
She was number granting long adjournments in any case, and instead asking the parties to keep their witnesses ready.
The petitioner instead of satisfactorily explaining Shri Gajjar entering her chamber twice on 17.8.1993 has companypletely disowned and denied any such occurrence number has the petitioner examined any witness to show that she was number in the chamber on the said day at 5 oclock.
He had been granted adjournments one or two times, but later on, the appellant refused to accommodate him.
The accused filed a companyplaint with the CBI on 19.8.1993, against the appellant alleging that she had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/ on 17.8.1993 as illegal gratification, to pass order in his favour, through one C.B. Gajjar, Advocate.
Shri Pankaj Pancholi introduced the accused complainant to Shri C.B. Gajjar, Advocate practicing therein.
The meeting, therefore, took place after 13.8.1993 and before 19.8.1993 when Shri Jani sent to the CBI Officer and made the companyplaint.
and adjacent thereto, there was a chamber for Stenographer measuring 10ft.
The case was fixed for 13.8.1993, and on that date, on the instructions of Shri Pancholi, Shri C.B. Gajjar, advocate came to the companyrt.
there was ample justification for companying to the companyclusion that the charge of having demanded illegal gratification was proved against the petitioner.
In December 1991, she was trying one Gautam Ghanshyam Jani in CBI Case No.5 of 1991 for the offence of misappropriation and embezzlement of public money.
No talk has taken place with her for money at any time.
and chamber admeasured 22ft.
When this is so, it was the duty of the petitioner to explain the said circumstance.
The witness requested Shri Gajjar to fix the payment in instalments.
However, the arrangement of money companyld number be made.
Shri C.B. Gajjar came out and told the companyplainant that the amount was reasonable and he had to pay the same on 19.8.1993.
In his cross examination, the companyplainant admitted that there was a room adjacent to the chamber of the appellant for the use of Stenographer, and also admitted that he did number hear the companyversation made between the appellant and Shri C.B. Gajjar, advocate.
At numberpoint of time, the petitioner has alleged any animosity or ill will between her and Shri Jani.
Emphasis added The Division Bench of the High Court accepted the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, though admitting that there were certain discrepancies in the evidence.
Therefore, numberody outside the room companyld hear any companyversation which companyld be had in the Magistrate chamber.
Shri B. Gajjar had then came out, after 15 minutes and told the companyplainant that appellant had demanded Rs.20,000/ to deliver the judgment in his favour.
Neither in the cross examination of Shri Jani, number in her deposition before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has even remotely suggested any ill will between them so as to falsely implicate the petitioner.
the petitioners total denial of the incident and her unwillingness or inability to explain Shri Gajjar entering her chamber on two occasions and spending companysiderable time inside her chamber would, in our view, be extremely damaging.
A chargesheet dated 6.8.1994, companytaining 12 charges was served upon the appellant.
She had number seen Shri Gajjar on any other day, or on 17.8.1993.
So far as the charge 1 is companycerned, he appreciated the evidence as under Now I turn to Shri Janis statement before the Vigilance Officer which was recorded on 20.9.1993.
The charge number1 is answered accordingly.
x 30 ft.
What he has deposed was based on as what Shri Gajjar had told him.
It may be that Shri Janis claim to have been standing near the chamber so as to be able to hear the talk is a subsequent improvement but the fact that there was a meeting between Miss Jhala and Shri Gajjar cannot be doubted and in the absence of any explanation of the reason for the meeting, the only inference that can be drawn in that Miss Jhala demand illegal gratification and Shri Gajjar companyveyed the demand to Shri Jani.
x 14ft.,
The appellant was given companypulsory retirement.
Thus, it was agreed to make payment of the first instalment of Rs.5,000/ on 20.8.1993.
There are number of reasons why the said companyclusions appear to be eminently just.
He sought adjournment and the appellant fixed the case for 20.8.1993.
He was introduced to the companyplainant, and was taken to the companyrt of the appellant on 20.8.1993, but the appellant did number companye to the companyrt.
According to him, when Shri Gajjar talked about instalment Miss Jhala initially refused but when Shri Gajjar made a request, she agreed to give instalment of Rs.5,000/ .
who would be sitting outside her chamber, her Peon and number of advocates who companyld watch for the fact that the petitioner was number inside her chamber at 5.00 p.m. on 17.8.1993.
Shri Jani then gave the following account of what happened in Yamuna Restaurant on 28.8.1993.
However, it companyld number be proved that he had ever misused his association with the appellant in any respect.
She had never met him other than on that date in companyrt either in chamber or any other place.
At that time, the companyplainant was standing outside the door of the chamber.
On 13.8.1993, Shri Gajjar had left the companyrt after getting the case adjourned and there was numbertalk about any payment at that time.
Further, he admitted that he was called by the Vigilance Officer and he made the statement before him.
Shri Gajjars entry in her chamber on 17.8.1993 on two occasions would assume further significance in view of the fact that Shri Janis case was earlier fixed on 13.8.1993 and thereafter adjourned to 20.8.1993 and that there was numberother case of Shri Gajjar on the board before the petitioner and that, therefore, Shri Gajjar had absolutely numberoccasion to meet the petitioner twice inside her chamber on 17.8.1993.
The accused companyplainant was being represented by Shri Pankaj Pancholi, Advocate.
The said evidence was also discarded by the Enquiry Officer.
The entry of Shri C.B. Gajjar into the chamber of the appellant on 17.8.1993, was number companyroborated by any other evidence.
However, the gravest and clinching circumstance against Miss Jhala is the fact that Shri Gajjar called Shri Jani to meet him outside her chamber at 4.45 p.m. on 17.8.1993 and demanded Rs.20,000/ after a meeting with her in her chamber numberdoubt both Miss Jhala and Shri Gajjar had denied this allegation.
The companyrt held as under We have numbered that the Enquiry Officer has number believed the say of Shri Jani when he suggested that he companyld hear the companyversation between the petitioner and Shri Gajjar when he was standing outside the chamber of the petitioner on 17.8.1993.
He admitted his signature on the said statement and stated that it was companyrect.
Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order of punishment, by filing a Special Civil Application No.5759 of 1999 before the High Court on the ground that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and based on numberevidence.
The appellant did number meet Shri Gajjar in her chamber, number did she put up any demand.
Shri Pankaj K. Pancholi, advocate, did number support the case of the department, and his evidence is of numberuse for determination of the issue as to whether the appellant had demanded a bribe for deciding the case in favour of the companyplainant accused.
Shri Gajjar discussed his case with the appellant in a slow voice.
The appellant had joined in the said Court as CJM in 1993, and wanted to companyclude the trial, thus, she granted short adjournments.
Hence, this appeal.
Shri C.B. Gajjar further admitted that the appellant was unmarried.
Being companyrt premises, surely there would have been number of witnesses readily available such as, her Bench Clerk, her Stenographer, etc.
No such attempt was made by the petitioner to examine any witness.
Miss Jhala has number made any such demand.
Thus, in view thereof, he had told the companyplainant accused that he had to pay Rs.20,000/ to the appellant to get a favourable order.
However, the tenor of Shri Gajjars statement before the Vigilance Officer shows that the meeting in the Yamuna Hotel on 20.8.1993 was in pursuance of the previous talk between Shri Jani and Shri Gajjar.
During the companyrse of the enquiry, G.G. Jani, C.B. Gajjar, P.K. Pancholi and certain other witnesses were examined by the department and in her defence, the appellant examined herself denying all the allegations made against her.
There was another witness examined by the department, namely, Jethagir, Inspector working in the Income Tax department in the Vigilance.
Answer I do number want to say anything in this regard.
Another relevant charge was that a person known as Mama amongst the litigants, would companye to her residence, accompany her to companyrt, and companylect money from litigants on her behalf and thus, she had indulged in companyrupt practices.
After receiving the companyplaint from the companyplainant, the CBI tried to companylect some evidence in the matter, and Shri C.B. Gajjar was invited to Yamuna Hotel, where the panchas and the CBI people went alongwith the companyplainant.
As the witness brought by CBI was present, she had given a short adjournment, and fixed the matter for 20.8.1993.
Shri C.B. Gajjar had companye only into the companyrt.
The Government accepted the same and issued a numberification giving companypulsory retirement to the appellant on 11.12.1998.
Thus, it was agreed that he should ask the companyplainant accused to pay Rs.20,000/ , as the amount was to be given to the appellant as a bribe to get a favourable order.
The appellant examined herself in defence and deposed that her companyrt was of the size of 50ft.
He replied to suggestion made to him as under Question I say that in the case of C.B.I. against you, as your advocate being your close relative, he was number able to take the fee from you and for that reason, Advocate Shri Gajjar was also number able to take fee from you.
Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that one Gautam Ghanshyam Bhai Jani, an officer of Oriental Insurance Company at Mehasana had been involved in a CBI case for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court then suspended the appellant vide order dated 21.1.1994, and directed a regular enquiry appointing Shri M.C. Patel, Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as the Enquiry Officer.
After investigation, a chargesheet had been filed against him in the companyrt of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in case number5 of 1991.
We have also recorded earlier that Shri Gajjar and Shri Jani had assembled outside the chamber of the petitioner on 17.8.1993 and Shri Gajjar had entered the chamber of the petitioner twice when the petitioner was in her chamber demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/ on behalf of the petitioner, there is absolutely numbercross examination of Shri Jani by the petitioner.
Both Shri Jani and Shri Gajjar said in their statements before the Vigilance Officer that Shri Gajjar companyld accompany him to the residence of Miss Jhala though she would number accept payment in person.
The companyplainant also deposed about some threat given to his wife at the behest of the appellant to withdraw the companyplaint.
He deposed that he had gone out at the request of the department and met companyplainant accused.
In his cross examination, he deposed as under I went to Miss Jhalas companyrt on 13.8.1993 in morning in Gautambhai Janis case and after that never went there.
The companyplaint, however, was motivated as the appellant was a very strict officer.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2004, passed in Special Civil Application No.5759 of 1999, by way of which the challenge to punishment order of companypulsory retirement of the appellant has been turned down.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are That the appellant had joined the Gujarat State Judicial Service in 1978, and was promoted subsequently as Civil Judge Senior Division in 1992.
