2023 (4) TMI 1271 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - acquittal of accused for extraneous consideration and not relying on the materials on record for coming to her conclusion - HELD THAT - The judgment delivered by the proceedee/writ petitioner misses out on certain basic facts even though the Officer had herself examined the prosecution witnesses and had exhibited the documents; but to accept the proposition that it was guided by unjust and extraneous considerations, especially in the absence of any evidence on record towards that effect, is difficult. In K. P. Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. 1993 (10) TMI 367 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court had the occasion to examine the appropriateness of the remarks which was made against a Judicial Officer by the High Court while reversing the order of bail granted by that Officer. In that case, the records revealed that the bail was granted without hearing the State Counsel or verifying the facts, which in the estimation of the High Court pointed towards the interestedness of the Judicial Officer granting bail. That interestedness was found in about five cases in which bail was granted by that Judicial Officer - the Supreme Court was of the view that no matter how unmerited was the bail order granted by the Judicial Officer, the High Court ought not to have ignored the judicial precaution and propriety even momentarily. A wrong judicial order could be modified or set-aside. This is one of the functions of the superior Courts. The legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges and, hence, there is provision for appeals and revisions. A Judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his/her capacity but while doing so, he/she may err sometimes. In the instant case, it is found that there is a solitary charge against the Judicial Officer of having recorded a verdict of not guilty in a complaint case, relating to an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. Prima facie, the records reveal that necessary documents in support of the prosecution were available on record. The benefit of doubt given to the petitioner as a Judicial Officer, who might well have passed an order in a hurry. Many a times, such orders do reflect a motive of helping the accused which in turn could be without any unjust consideration, but that cannot be taken as the sole motivating factor in all cases where the judgments do not pass the test of constitutionality and legality, facts, law or otherwise. The final outcome of the departmental proceeding of the petitioner not agreed upon - The punishment awarded to her is much too harsh even for the recklessness having been exhibited by her as a Judicial Officer. After having given anxious consideration over such suggestion, it is found that doing so it would only be counter productive as the petitioner is a Judicial Officer, who would again be subjected to such rigors unnecessarily when there does not require any other evidence to prove that the judgment of acquittal was totally unmerited. To prove that there was extraneous consideration behind such unmerited acquittal would require a revisit of the entire charge before a disciplinary authority, which is neither warranted nor necessary, as it was a solitary instance which has been reported. The decision of compulsory retiring the petitioner is set aside and the sentence modified by directing for withholding of three increments of pay with cumulative effect - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Departmental Proceedings Against Judicial Officer
2. Judgment of Acquittal Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
3. Inquiry and Findings by the Enquiry Officer
4. Punishment of Compulsory Retirement
5. Judicial Review and Proportionality of Punishment

Summary:

1. Departmental Proceedings Against Judicial Officer:
The writ petitioner, a Judicial Officer, faced departmental proceedings for allegedly acquitting an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on extraneous considerations and not relying on the materials on record.

2. Judgment of Acquittal Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act:
The Judicial Officer acquitted the accused in Complaint Case No. 2163(c) of 2012, concluding that the complainant did not produce necessary evidence such as the return memo and Advocate's notice. The complainant had not examined himself, leading to the inference that no case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act could be established.

3. Inquiry and Findings by the Enquiry Officer:
The Enquiry Officer found a serious lapse on the part of the Judicial Officer, indicating grave negligence and lack of judicial fairness. The Officer did not produce any witnesses in her defense but claimed the documents were not available on the date of judgment due to being in the Copying Department, which the Enquiry Officer found incorrect. Despite no direct evidence of extraneous considerations, the Enquiry Officer inferred that the judgment could not have been passed without unfair reasons.

4. Punishment of Compulsory Retirement:
Based on the Enquiry Officer's report, the Judicial Officer was subjected to compulsory retirement. The High Court Standing Committee affirmed this decision. The petitioner argued that the lapse was a bona fide mistake and that disciplinary actions should be based on definite evidence of extraneous considerations.

5. Judicial Review and Proportionality of Punishment:
The Court referred to precedents emphasizing that wrong judicial orders should not automatically lead to disciplinary actions unless there is clear evidence of extraneous considerations. The Court found the punishment of compulsory retirement disproportionate to the charge. Exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside the decision of compulsory retirement and modified the punishment to withholding three increments of pay with cumulative effect. The petitioner was to be reinstated immediately but without pay for the period out of service, maintaining continuity of service.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, modifying the punishment and directing the reinstatement of the petitioner.