HC upholds removal of Civil Judge accused of taking Rs.7.5 lakh for promising judicial jobs

12/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 11: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the removal from service of former Civil Judge (Junior Division) Naveen Jamwal, who was found guilty in a departmental inquiry of serious misconduct involving allegations that he accepted a total of Rs.7.5 lakh from three persons on the promise of securing Class-IV jobs in the judicial department.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed Jamwal's writ petition challenging the disciplinary proceedings and Government Order dated May 20, 2022, by which he was removed from service. The judgment was pronounced on July 31, 2026.
Jamwal, who was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Munsiff in 2013 and was posted as Munsiff/Additional Mobile Magistrate at Doda, was accused of inducing three persons - Chambail Singh, Ranjit Singh and Rattan Singh - to pay Rs.2.50 lakh each on the assurance that he could arrange their appointment in the Judicial Department by influencing senior officers and members of the selection committee.
The complainants alleged that after they were not selected, Jamwal neither returned their money nor entertained their requests for refund. A complaint was subsequently made before the High Court, following which the Registrar Vigilance conducted a preliminary inquiry. The inquiry found prima facie substance in the allegations and recommended a regular departmental inquiry.
The regular inquiry was entrusted to then High Court judge Justice Sanjeev Kumar as the Enquiry Officer. The inquiry ultimately found all charges proved and held Jamwal guilty of serious misconduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.
The Bench rejected Jamwal's principal contention that he had been denied an opportunity to defend himself. It found from the original record that the charge-sheet and notices had been duly served upon him and that he had been given repeated opportunities to participate in the proceedings. Despite service, he remained absent, following which the inquiry proceeded ex parte.
The Court also rejected the challenge concerning a compact disc containing a recorded conversation. It noted that the Enquiry Officer had not relied upon the CD for determining culpability, but had principally relied upon the oral testimony of the three complainants.
The Bench observed that the complainants had consistently reiterated their allegations before the Registrar Vigilance as well as the Enquiry Officer and that their testimony remained uncontroverted because Jamwal chose not to participate in the inquiry or cross-examine them.
Rejecting the plea of violation of natural justice, the Court held that a person who deliberately abstains from disciplinary proceedings despite due notice cannot subsequently challenge the inquiry on the ground that it was conducted ex parte.
The Bench further held that suspension was not a prerequisite for initiating or continuing disciplinary proceedings and that the decision whether to suspend an employee falls within the domain of the disciplinary authority.
On the standard applicable to judicial review, the Court said it does not sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary proceedings and cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, vitiated by mala fides or in flagrant violation of statutory provisions or natural justice.
The Bench underlined that the office of a Judicial Officer demands "unimpeachable integrity" and "absolute honesty", observing that allegations of accepting money on the promise of securing public employment strike at the root of judicial probity and can erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.
The Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the applicable service rules, adequate opportunities had been afforded to Jamwal, and the findings of guilt were supported by evidence.
Finding no procedural infirmity, legal perversity or disproportion in the punishment, the Bench dismissed the writ petition and upheld Government Order No. 2704-JK(LD) of 2022 dated May 20, 2022, removing Jamwal from service. There was no order as to costs.
Jamwal was represented by Senior Advocate Surinder Kour, assisted by Advocate Manpreet Kour, while the High Court was represented by Advocate Aditya Gupta and the Government by Senior Advocate (Senior AAG) Monika Kohli.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty