Law:

Section:

The underlying principle regarding the disciplinary penalty for a judicial officer found to be of "bad repute," even absent a proved charge of corruption, is that the standard for a judge is not "not guilty" but "beyond reproach," because judicial legitimacy rests on integrity as much as competence; and compulsory retirement — which lets reputation be negotiated away with benefits intact — is untenable. Removal from service alone satisfies the institution's demand for an unblemished judiciary. Summary The court reviewed consolidated appeals concerning a judicial officer who, though not proved to have accepted illegal gratification, was found to have a tarnished reputation that undermined judicial integrity. The Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal had reduced the competent authority’s penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement; the High Court and the officer separately challenged that modification. This Court upheld the finding that corruption was not proved but held that a judge’s bad repute—given the special need for judges to be above reproach—justified removal rather than retirement. The Tribunal’s substitution of compulsory retirement was set aside, the removal order restored, and the officer’s separate appeal to expunge PER remarks was dismissed as redundant or time-barred. Core points: Parties and reliefs: three CPLA petitions — judicial officer sought acquittal/reinstatement (CPLA No.1606/2025) and expunction of adverse PER entries (CPLA No.2172/2025); High Court sought restoration of inquiry findings and penalty (CPLA No.642/2025). Facts: officer served as Additional District & Sessions Judge, received adverse PER remarks, complaints of illegal gratification; inquiry held and recommended removal. Tribunal decision: upheld bad-repute findings, found no proof of illegal gratification, and modified penalty from removal to compulsory retirement. Issues for court: whether bad repute (without proved corruption) can justify removal; whether Tribunal properly substituted compulsory retirement. Court’s factual conclusion: no sufficient proof…