2020 (3) TMI 1360 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking judicial review of dismissal from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services by Respondent - illegal gratification - HELD THAT - Any probability of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material even though the standard of proof would obviously not be at par with that in a criminal trial. While applying these yardsticks the High Court is expected to consider the existence of differing standards and approaches amongst different judges. There are innumerable instances of judicial officers who are liberal in granting bail awarding compensation under MACT or for acquired land backwages to workmen or mandatory compensation in other cases of tortious liabilities. Such relief-oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer. It is evident in the case in hand that the High Court itself was cognizant of this settled proposition of law. Learned senior Counsel for the Appellant also finds no fault with these principles and instead only seeks for their application to the facts of the present case. It is a matter of record that at the time when the High Court was seized of this matter writ petitions against both of the Appellant s land acquisition judgments had been dismissed by its coordinate benches. The High Court has nevertheless rightly observed that dismissal of writ petitions against the Appellant s orders did not serve as vindication or confirmation of her orders. Indeed as correctly noted by the High Court the scope of judicial review Under Article 226 is limited - the dismissal of writ petition merely signifies the failure to demonstrate any of these high standards in a particular case and not the endorsement of the orders passed by a subordinate authority. There is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on the part of the Appellant. Instead the very basis of the finding of misbehaviour is the end result itself which as per the High Court was so shocking that it gave rise to a natural suspicion as to the integrity and honesty of the Appellant - petition allowed.

Issues Involved
1. Legality and propriety of the judicial orders passed by the Appellant.
2. Allegations of misconduct and extraneous considerations in the decision-making process.
3. Scope and standards of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers.
4. Appropriateness of the quantum of punishment imposed on the Appellant.

Detailed Analysis

Legality and Propriety of Judicial Orders
The Appellant, a judicial officer, faced disciplinary action for two judicial orders she passed, which allegedly violated judicial norms. The first order (Lile Singh v. State) enhanced compensation from Rs. 74.40/sq yd to Rs. 264/sq yd, further escalating to Rs. 720/sq yd by including solatium and interest. The second order (Umesh Chandra v. State) increased compensation from Rs. 100/sq yd to Rs. 160/sq yd, disregarding exemplars and previous awards. The High Court deemed these actions disproportionate and against judicial propriety, suggesting they were influenced by extraneous considerations.

Allegations of Misconduct and Extraneous Considerations
The Enquiry Committee found the Appellant guilty of misconduct, stating that the errors in her judgments were "shocking blunders" indicative of deliberate actions rather than mere misjudgment. The High Court endorsed this view, emphasizing that judicial officers must maintain absolute integrity and that the Appellant’s actions led to windfall gains for claimants, suggesting misconduct. However, the Appellant argued that no specific allegations of illegal gratification or extraneous factors were made in the chargesheet, and the decisions were based on legal provisions and policies.

Scope and Standards of Judicial Review
The High Court noted that while the final decisions of judicial officers are not typically scrutinized in disciplinary proceedings, the decision-making process and conduct must adhere to judicial propriety. The Court emphasized that allegations must be supported by material evidence, even though the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is lower than in criminal trials. The Appellant contended that the enquiry was roving and lacked a rational basis, and that any errors in her judgments should be considered negligence rather than misconduct.

Appropriateness of Quantum of Punishment
The Appellant argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate, given her unblemished service record of nearly thirty years. The High Court, however, maintained that judicial officers must adhere to higher standards of integrity and that any deviation from judicial propriety should be dealt with sternly. The Appellant’s counsel highlighted that the charges were based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence of misconduct, and that the judicial immunity principle should protect her from such actions.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the dismissal order. The Court emphasized that the end result of judicial decisions does not matter as much as the decision-making process. Since no explicit allegations of extraneous considerations or illegal gratification were made against the Appellant, and given that one of her judgments was affirmed and further enhanced by the Supreme Court, the basis for the charges collapsed. The Appellant was reinstated with consequential benefits, including retiral benefits.

This summary captures the essence and detailed analysis of the judgment, preserving the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.

← Previous Next →