Judiciary:
Judicial service – Disciplinary proceedings – Against judicial officer – On two charges (i) granting bail without noticing order of superior court and (ii) closing evidence without ensuring production of witnesses – Found guilty of misconduct – Propriety of – Held: Art.235 of the Constitution vests control of subordinate courts upon High Court – High Courts are also the protectors and guardians of judges falling within their administrative control – In order to ensure independence of subordinate judiciary disciplinary action should not be taken against judicial officers just because they passed wrong orders, unless there are clear-cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind etc. – The appropriate action for passing wrong order would be to record the same on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the officer concerned and the same can be taken into consideration while considering career progression of such officer – If there is continuous flow of wrong or illegal orders, the proper action would be to compulsorily retire the judicial officer – In the facts of the present case, the delinquent officer cannot be held guilty of misconduct – The orders passed against the delinquent officer are quashed – Constitution of India – Art.235.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There can be no Rule of Law, there can be no democracy unless there is a strong, fearless and independent judiciary. This independence and fearlessness is not only expected at the level of the Superior Courts but also from the District judiciary. Therefore, it is important that the judiciary at the District Level and at the Taluka level is absolutely honest, fearless and free from any pressure and is able to decide cases only on the basis of the facts on file, uninfluenced by any pressure from any quarters whatsoever. [Para 1 and 2] [864-H; 865-A-B]
1.2 Article 235 of the Constitution of India vests control of the subordinate Courts upon the High Courts. The High Courts exercise disciplinary powers over the subordinate Courts. The High Courts are also the protectors and guardians of the judges falling within their administrative control. Action should not be taken against judicial officers only because wrong orders are passed. No doubt, there has to be zero tolerance for corruption and if there are allegations of corruption, misconduct or of acts unbecoming a judicial officer, these must be dealt with strictly. However, if wrong orders are passed that should not lead to disciplinary action unless there is evidence that the wrong orders have been passed for extraneous reasons and not because of the reasons on the file. If any judicial officer conducts proceedings in a manner which would reflect on his reputation or integrity or there is prima facie material to show reckless misconduct on his part while discharging his duties, the High Court would be entitled to initiate disciplinary cases but such material should be evident from the orders and should also be placed on record during the course of disciplinary proceedings. [Paras 3,4 and 8] [865-C-F; 868-D]
1.3 It is not that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned. These matters can be taken into consideration while considering career progression of the concerned judicial officer. Once note of the wrong order is taken and they form part of the service record these can be taken into consideration to deny selection grade, promotion etc., and in case there is a continuous flow of wrong or illegal orders then the proper action would be to compulsorily retire the judicial officer, in accordance with the Rules. Unless there are clear-cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind etc., disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the judicial officer or merely on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect. [Para 16] [871E-H]
Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab &
Haryana and another (1988) 3 SCC 370 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 396 ; Union of India & Ors. v.. A.N. Saxena (1992) 3 SCC 124 : [1992] 2 SCR 364 ; Union of India & Ors. v. K.K. Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56 : [1993] 1 SCR 296 ; P.C. Joshi v.. State of U.P. & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 491 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 369 ;
Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 247 : [2007] 3 SCR 198 – relied on.
2.1 In the present case the main ground to hold the appellant-judicial officer guilty of the first charge is that the appellant did not take notice of the orders of the High Court whereby the High Court had rejected the bail application of one of the accused. The officer may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he did not carefully go through the case file and did not take notice of the order of the High Court which was on his file. This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct. The enquiry officer had not found that there was any extraneous reason for granting bail. The enquiry officer virtually sat as a court of appeal picking holes in the order granting bail. [Para 11] [869-F-H; 870-A]
2.2 So far as the second charge is concerned, wherein it was alleged that the appellant as a Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 closed the evidence resulting in acquittal of the accused, the enquiry officer on the basis of the statements of two clerks of the Court has made lengthy observations that the appellant did not send any communication to the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate and other authorities to ensure the production of the witnesses. According to the enquiry officer, the appellant should have made efforts to approach the senior officials to get the witnesses produced. The Code of Criminal Procedure or the NDPS Act do not provide for any such procedure. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce the witnesses. In the present case, the Public Prosecutor had made a note on the side of the daily order-sheet that he is unable to produce the witnesses so the evidences may be closed. While holding the appellant guilty of misconduct no reference has been made to the statement of the Public Prosecutor. The appellant had given 18 adjournments for production of the witnesses to the prosecution in the NDPS case. Such a judicial officer is between the devil and the deep sea. If he keeps on granting adjournments then the High Court will take action against him on the ground that he does not dispose of his cases efficiently and if he closes the evidence then the High Court will take action on the ground that he has let the accused go scot-free. [Paras 14, 15] [870-F-H; 871-B-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.