The Bombay High Court emphasized the importance of judicial dignity, cautioning against any behavior that could impact the judiciary's reputation. This stance was articulated as the court declined to reinstate a civil judge who faced allegations of appearing in court while intoxicated.

Aniruddha Pathak, aged 52, lodged a petition in the high court contesting his dismissal from the position of civil judge junior division. He challenged the grounds of alleged misconduct and repeated instances of attending court while intoxicated.

Pathak contested an order issued by the Law and Judiciary Department of the Maharashtra government in January 2022, which resulted in his removal from judicial service.

The order was issued following the submission of a report by the principal district and session judge of Nandurbar.

A division bench consisting of Justices AS Chandurkar and JS Jain dismissed the petition, stating that they did not find the removal order to be unreasonable or lacking in careful consideration.

"It is a universally accepted norm that judges and judicial officers must act with dignity and must not indulge in a conduct or behaviour which is likely to affect the image of the judiciary or which is unbecoming of a judicial officer," the court said.

The court emphasized that if members of the judiciary engage in behavior that is morally questionable or does not align with the standards expected of judicial officers, then the courts cannot provide any relief.

"Judges, while discharging their functions, exercise the sovereign judicial power of the state and hence standards expected to be maintained are of the highest nature," the bench said in its order.

Pathak was appointed as a civil judge junior division in March 2010 and served in various districts until his removal. The allegations against him included improper conduct while presiding over court proceedings, failure to adhere to court timings, and arriving at court while under the influence of alcohol.

He was a judge at the Shahada court in Nandurbar district at the time.

"We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, more so because the petitioner was occupying a post which is looked upon with high respect, and if the disciplinary committee has come to a conclusion of removal from service, then it cannot be said to be perverse," the court observed.