9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Termination of services without inquiry and opportunity to defend. 2. Validity of complaints and allegations against the appellant. 3. Assessment of appellant's work and conduct during probation. 4. Role of the High Court in protecting judicial officers. Summary: 1. Termination of services without inquiry and opportunity to defend: The appellant challenged the High Court's decision to terminate his services as an Addl. District and Sessions Judge without holding an inquiry or providing an opportunity to defend himself, arguing it violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The High Court held that as a probationer, the appellant's services could be terminated without such procedures. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had no relevant material to conclude that the appellant's work and conduct were unsatisfactory, rendering the termination unjustified. 2. Validity of complaints and allegations against the appellant: The appellant faced multiple complaints, including allegations of poor judgment and misconduct. For instance, Justice Bains criticized the appellant's judgment in a criminal case, but the Supreme Court later expunged these remarks as unwarranted. Complaints from the Bar Association and individuals like Ram Nath Mehlawat were found to be motivated and lacking substantiation. The Supreme Court emphasized that complaints from unsuccessful litigants should not be taken at face value without proper evidence. 3. Assessment of appellant's work and conduct during probation: The High Court relied on a report by the vigilance judge, Justice Surinder Singh, which suggested further investigation into some complaints but did not conclusively find the appellant guilty of misconduct. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's confidential roll for the year 1983-84 was satisfactory, and the entry for 1984-85, initially graded as 'B' plus, was unjustifiably downgraded by the High Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's work and conduct were not unsatisfactory based on the available material. 4. Role of the High Court in protecting judicial officers: The Supreme Court underscored the High Court's constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers, especially those on probation. It criticized the High Court for not providing proper guidance to the appellant and for considering ill-conceived complaints. The Court emphasized that an independent and honest judiciary is crucial for the rule of law and that judicial officers should be protected from motivated complaints. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 9.12.1986 and the State Government's order dated 30.12.1986, and directed the reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service, arrears of salary, and other benefits. The appellant was also awarded costs quantified at Rs. 5,000.
|
