2019 (9) TMI 1716 - SC - Indian Laws

Gross judicial impropriety, judicial indiscipline, lack of integrity, gross misconduct and an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. HELD THAT - As far as the first charge is concerned, a major fact, which was not considered by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority as well as the High Court was that the Additional Public Prosecutor, who had appeared on behalf of the State had not opposed the prayer of the accused for grant of bail. In case, the public prosecutor does not oppose the bail, then normally any Judge would grant bail - The main ground to hold the appellant guilty of the first charge is that the appellant did not take notice of the orders of the High Court whereby the High Court had rejected the bail application of one of the accused vide order dated 26.11.2001. It would be pertinent to mention that the High Court itself observed that after framing of charges, if the non-official witnesses are not examined, the prayer for bail could be removed, but after moving the Lower Court first. The officer may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he did not carefully go through the case file and did not take notice of the order of the High Court which was on his file. This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct. After rejection of the bail application of the accused, two out of three accused moved the High Court. The High Court granted bail to one of the accused and the bail application of the other was rejected, not on merits but on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he had earlier moved the High Court for grant of bail. This itself is clear indicator of the fact that probably even the order passed by the appellant is not an incorrect one. Coming to the second charge, which is under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS . On 18.07.2002 the appellant, a Special Judge, closed the evidence of the prosecution which resulted in material witnesses not being examined and consequently the accused was acquitted. As far as this allegation is concerned, the enquiry officer on the basis of the statements of two clerks of the Court has made lengthy observations that the appellant did not send any communication to the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate and other authorities to ensure the production of the witnesses - the enquiry officer, while conducting the enquiry, has noted, while considering the arguments of the delinquent official, that he had raised a plea that he closed the evidence because the Public Prosecutor had made the statement, but while holding the appellant guilty of misconduct no reference has been made to the statement of the Public Prosecutor. The judgment of the High Court set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Independence and protection of the judiciary, particularly at the district level.
2. Disciplinary actions against judicial officers for passing wrong orders.
3. Specific charges against the appellant judicial officer.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

Independence and Protection of the Judiciary:
The judgment emphasizes the sacrosanct nature of judicial independence, crucial for upholding the Rule of Law and democracy. It underscores that this independence is essential not only for Superior Courts but also for the District judiciary, as most litigants interact only with the latter. The judgment reiterates that the judiciary at the district and taluka levels must be "absolutely honest, fearless and free from any pressure" to decide cases based solely on facts.

Disciplinary Actions Against Judicial Officers:
The judgment discusses Article 235 of the Constitution of India, which vests control over subordinate courts in the High Courts, including disciplinary powers. It highlights that while there must be zero tolerance for corruption, disciplinary actions should not be initiated merely because a judicial officer has passed a wrong order. The judgment refers to several precedents, including Ishwar Chand Jain Vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and P.C. Joshi Vs. State of U.P., to emphasize that wrong orders due to human error should not lead to disciplinary actions unless there is evidence of extraneous reasons. The judgment stresses that initiating disciplinary proceedings for wrong orders can undermine judicial independence and create a climate of fear among judicial officers.

Specific Charges Against the Appellant Judicial Officer:
- Charge 1: The appellant, while functioning as an Additional District & Sessions Judge, granted bail to three accused despite prior rejections by the High Court. The judgment notes that the Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose the bail, which is a significant factor. The appellant's failure to notice the High Court's previous orders was deemed negligence rather than misconduct. The appellant corrected his mistake by canceling the bail upon realizing the oversight.

- Charge 2: The appellant, as a Special Judge under the NDPS Act, closed the prosecution's evidence hastily, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The judgment points out that the Public Prosecutor had requested the closure of evidence, and the appellant had given 18 adjournments for the production of witnesses. The judgment criticizes the enquiry officer for not considering the Public Prosecutor's role and notes the appellant's dilemma of balancing efficiency and thoroughness.

The judgment concludes that the charges against the appellant do not constitute misconduct as there was no evidence of extraneous considerations or corrupt motives. It emphasizes that judicial officers should not face disciplinary actions for wrong orders unless there are clear allegations of misconduct or extraneous influences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed all orders against the appellant judicial officer. The appellant was directed to receive all consequential benefits by 31.12.2019, and the appeal was allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The judgment reiterates the importance of protecting judicial independence and cautions against initiating disciplinary proceedings based solely on incorrect judicial orders.