By Jeevak Mukherjee

The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer, who found insufficient evidence to specifically incriminate Kale. On July 19, 2019, a show-cause notice was sent, and on August 5, 2019, Kale denied giving Keer instructions. On December 5, 2019, Kale’s government employment was terminated after he was found guilty of bribery allegations. Kale challenged this ruling, pointing to his excellent performance history and the paucity of evidence. The State contended that Kale should bear the burden of proof because he had not responded to the accusations. The Court determined that the sentence was appropriate and exempt from interference under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, considering the significance of upholding the judiciary’s dignity and the plaintiffs’ faith in the legal system. The petition was therefore dismissed. The Enquiry Officer found insufficient evidence to directly indict Kale; the Disciplinary Authority disagreed. A show-cause notice was delivered on July 19, 2019, and Kale denied giving Keer instructions on August 5, 2019. Kale’s government job was terminated on December 5, 2019, following his conviction for bribery charges. Kale contested this decision, citing the lack of proof and his stellar performance history. Since Kale had not answered to the charges, the State argued that he should be required to prove his innocence. The Court concluded that, in light of the importance of preserving the dignity of the judiciary and the plaintiffs’ faith in the legal system, the sentence was reasonable and free from interference under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The request was turned down.

Case: Pradeep Hiraman Kale vs. State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court

Citation: Writ Petition (L) No. 555 of 2020

Click here to read/download the judgement