Service Law – Respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Respondent was suspended from service on allegations of gross misconduct, followed by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings – As per the enquiry reports, some charges stood proved and the other charges were not proved – Full Court of the High Court resolved to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent – Based on the resolution, respondent was dismissed from service – Respondent challenged the findings of the enquiry officer and the order of dismissal from service by filing writ petitions before the High Court – High Court dismissed the same – The respondent filed intra-court appeals against the same – Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of penalty and the findings of the enquiry officer and also directed that no further inquiry can be held against the respondent – On appeal, held: Some of the charges against the respondent were very serious in nature, such as pronouncing the operative portion of the judgment in open court without the whole text of the judgment being ready, and similarly the conduct of auction sale of properties seized during the investigation – Judicial Officer pronouncing the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated would amount to gross misconduct – Such conduct is completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer – High Court was not justified in setting aside the penalty and in ordering that there shall be no further enquiry against the Respondent – Judgment of High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Once those charges which revolve around the manner of disposal of certain cases are ignored, what remains are certain serious charges that revolve around pronouncement of operative portion of the judgment in open court without the whole text of the judgment being ready. Take for instance, Charge Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in DI No.3/2005. These Charges are very serious in nature, where the respondent is alleged to have pronounced the operative portion of the judgment in open court without the whole of the judgment being ready. Similarly Charge No.1 in DI No.5/2005 related to the conduct of auction sale of properties, seized during the investigation. These are very serious in nature and the reply given by the respondent to these charges is wishy washy. [Para 12][59-D-E]
2. A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated. All that the respondent has done in the departmental enquiry is just to pass on the responsibility to the inefficient and allegedly novice stenographer. This Court does not know how the findings with regard to such serious charges have been completely white-washed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. A look at the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that the Division Bench of the High Court was swayed away unduly by the animosity attributed by the respondent to a member of the local Bar and the Assistant Public Prosecutor. If it is assumed for a minute that the charges were on the basis of complaints initiated by persons bearing ill-will and motive against the respondent. Even then, such ill-will and motive may not make the conduct of the respondent in not preparing judgments but pronouncing the outcome of the case, a condonable conduct. It is true that some of the charges revolve around judicial pronouncements and the judicial decision-making processes and that they cannot per se, without anything more, form the foundation for departmental proceedings. Therefore, this Court is ignoring those charges. But the charges which revolve around gross negligence and callousness on the part of the respondent in not preparing/dictating judgments, but providing a fait accompli, is completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer. [Paras 13, 14, 15][59-F-H; 60-AB]
3. The defence taken by the respondent that the lack of experience and the inefficiency on the part of the stenographer has to be blamed, for the whole text of the judgment not getting ready even after several days of pronouncement of the result in open court, was entirely unacceptable. But unfortunately, the High Court not only accepted this panchatantra story, but also went to the extent of blaming the administration for not examining the stenographer as a witness. Such an approach is wholly unsustainable. If it was the case of the respondent that the entire blame lay upon the stenographer, it was for him to have summoned the stenographer as a witness. The High Court unfortunately reversed the burden of proof. [Para 16][60-C-D]
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited vs. Mahesh Dahiya (2017) 1 SCC 768 : [2016] 9 SCR
879; Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC
398 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 131; Union of India and Ors. vs. E. Bashyan (1988) 2 SCC 196 : [1988] 3 SCR 209; Union of India and Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 248; The Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. B. Karunakar and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 576 – referred to.
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.