Nirbhay Singh Suliya vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

27 years of unblemished service solely on the basis of four judicial orders by which he enlarged certain parties therein on bail – Those four orders were contrasted with fourteen other orders of bail and after finding that in the four orders s.59-A, Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 was not referred to, it was held that it was proved that for corrupt motive or for some extraneous consideration bail applications were allowed contrary to s.59-A, Excise Act – Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of removal and the order of appellate authority and prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits – Dismissed – Interference with: Held: Only because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgment, without anything more, a judicial officer should not be put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding or a prosecution – Merely because a different conclusion was possible is not an indicium for misconduct – Disciplinary Authority has to examine whether there has emerged from the record, one or more circumstances that indicate that the decision which forms the basis of the charge of misconduct was not an honest exercise of judicial power – Appellant was held guilty of misconduct only based on certain judicial orders granting bail without anything more – No material on record to show that there are circumstances from which inference could be drawn that extraneous considerations actuated the passing of those orders of bail – The hypothesis was drawn only on the basis that the order did not make reference to the statutory provision expressly – Moreover, a perusal of the four orders show that reasons were given, though there is no express mention s.59-A (2), Excise Act – The finding that in 14 other orders he referred to s.59-A (2), Excise Act is by itself not enough to infer misconduct in the passing of the four bail orders in question – It will be a dangerous proposition to hold that judgments and orders which do not refer expressly to statutory provisions are per se dis-honest judgments – Findings in the inquiry report are perverse and not supported by the evidence on record – High Court erred in not interfering with the order – Order of removal, the order of Appellate Authority and the impugned order of the High Court set aside – Appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service till he attained the normal age of superannuation – Since the appellant has been kept out of service for no fault of his, full back wages with all consequential benefits be given to him – Per Pardiwala, J. [Concurring] Mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself without anything more, cannot be a ground to initiate departmental proceedings. [Paras 29, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 1]

Judiciary – District judiciary – Allegations against judicial officers – Duty of High Court – Note of caution: Held: High Court which is vested with the supervisory control has to exercise great caution and circumspection – Only because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgment, without anything more, a judicial officer should not be put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding or a prosecution – Merely because the order is wrong, disciplinary action is not warranted and each case will depend upon the facts and no absolute rule can be postulated – Inference of misconduct or about extraneous considerations having actuated, the decision cannot be drawn merely from a hypothesis that a decision is erroneous – A wrong decision can yet be a bona fide error of judgment and inadvertence is consistent with an honest error of judgment – It is not the correctness of the verdict but the conduct of the Officer in question which is determinative – Per Pardiwala, J. [Concurring] High Court vested with the supervisory control must keep in mind that a judicial officer of the district judiciary works mostly in a charged atmosphere – A mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself without anything more, cannot be a ground to initiate departmental proceedings. [Paras 32, 35, 1]

Directions by Supreme Court – False and frivolous complaint against a judicial officer vis-à-vis complaints of misconduct against the judicial officer if prima facie found to be true – Course of action by High Courts:

Held: Strict and strong action in accordance with law should be taken against individuals filing a false and frivolous complaint against a judicial officer and/or if found to be engineering the false and frivolous complaints – Such proceedings would include in appropriate cases, proceedings for contempt of court – In case the person filing or engineering false and frivolous complaints is a recalcitrant member of the Bar, apart from proceedings for contempt of court, reference to the bar council should be made for disciplinary action – Bar councils, on receipt of such references, have to dispose of the matter expeditiously – Equally, if the complaint of misconduct against the judicial officer is prima facie found to be true, prompt action to initiate disciplinary proceeding should be taken and no leniency should be shown if the charges are established – In appropriate cases where criminal prosecution is warranted against a judicial officer, the High Court should not hesitate to have the same initiated – However, due care and caution must be exercised by the High Court in initiating such proceedings – Only because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgment, without anything more, a judicial officer should not be put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding or a prosecution. [Paras 28, 29] Justice delivery system – Judiciary – District judiciary – Bail – Exercise of discretion for grant of bail – Reluctance of trial court judges – Fear of initiation of departmental proceedings on mere suspicion:

Held: Per Pardiwala, J. [Concurring] Initiation of departmental proceedings on mere suspicion is one of the primary causes why trial court judges are reluctant when it comes to exercising discretion for the purpose of grant of bail – It should not happen that because of the lurking fear in the mind of a trial court judge, of some administrative action being taken that even in a deserving case, well within the principles of law, bail is declined – This is one reason why the High Courts and the Supreme Court are flooded with bail applications – Courts of the district judiciary wield powers necessary for the functioning of the justice delivery system in India and when their autonomy is compromised by higher courts and fear takes precedence over judicial duties, democracy and the rule of law suffer – Over a period of time, the trial court judges have exhibited tendency to shirk from their solemn judicial function and responsibility when it comes to exercising discretion in matters relating to bail – Courts of the district judiciary wield powers necessary for the functioning of the justice delivery system in India and when their autonomy is compromised by higher courts and fear takes precedence over judicial duties, democracy and the rule of law suffer – For functioning of democracy, an independent judiciary to dispense justice without fear and favour is paramount. [Paras 2, 3]