1997 (4) TMI 540 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Disciplinary Committee to recommend dismissal.
2. Sufficiency of evidence to prove misconduct.
3. Allegations of bias against the Enquiry Officer.
4. Procedural propriety and authority of the Committee of Judges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Disciplinary Committee to Recommend Dismissal:
The primary question was whether the Disciplinary Committee of five Judges was competent to recommend the respondent's dismissal. The Supreme Court held that under Article 235 of the Constitution, the control over subordinate courts is vested in the High Court. The Full Court of the High Court had authorized a Committee of five Judges to deal with disciplinary matters, including the imposition of punishment on judicial officers. The Court concluded that the Committee's recommendation to the Government to impose a penalty of dismissal was within its delegated authority. The Committee acted on behalf of the High Court, and its decision was valid even though only four Judges participated in the final decision due to the retirement of one Judge. The Court found that the majority of four Judges constituted a quorum and was competent to transact the administrative business of the Court.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence to Prove Misconduct:
The respondent was charged with demanding illegal gratification and manipulating judicial records. The Enquiry Officer found that charges 1 and 2 and part of charge 3 were proved. The High Court initially set aside the dismissal, stating that no reasonable man would conclude that the respondent demanded illegal gratification based on the evidence. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that judicial review is not meant to re-appreciate evidence. The Enquiry Officer's findings, supported by the High Court's acceptance, were deemed sufficient to conclude misconduct. The Court reiterated that the judiciary must be free from any influence and that the conduct of judicial officers should be above reproach.

3. Allegations of Bias Against the Enquiry Officer:
The respondent alleged bias against the Enquiry Officer, claiming that the charges framed did not reflect the actual charges by the High Court. The Supreme Court found no merit in this allegation, noting that the bias claim was raised only in the reply to the show cause notice and not at the inception of the enquiry. The Court held that the Enquiry Officer's manner of posing questions did not indicate bias or prejudice. The charges were framed by the High Court and communicated to the Enquiry Officer, who merely expressed the issues differently in his report.

4. Procedural Propriety and Authority of the Committee of Judges:
The High Court's Full Court had passed a resolution authorizing a Committee of five Judges to deal with disciplinary matters. The Supreme Court examined the procedural steps and found that the Committee acted within its delegated authority. The decision to recommend dismissal was made after circulating the record to all five Judges, and the absence of one Judge did not invalidate the recommendation. The Court emphasized that the High Court's control over subordinate judiciary includes initiating disciplinary proceedings and making recommendations to the Government. The Governor's order of dismissal, based on the High Court's recommendation, was deemed valid and not vitiated by any procedural irregularity.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, confirming the respondent's dismissal from service and dismissing the writ petition. The Court upheld the competence of the Disciplinary Committee, the sufficiency of evidence to prove misconduct, and the procedural propriety of the Committee's actions. The allegations of bias were found to be without merit, and the Governor's order of dismissal was validated. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining judicial integrity and the High Court's control over subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution.