9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1427 - HC - Indian LawsWithdrawal of entire pension having been permanently withdrawn after excluding the pension amount which was commuted by him - possession of fake currency notes - arrest on hot-chase with narcotics - HELD THAT - For the absence of any material to justify the charge of extraneous reasons while passing the orders, it is found that the inquiry report and the decision of the Standing Committee of the High Court in withdrawing the entire pension of the petitioner is unsustainable in the eyes of law. In KRISHNA PRASAD VERMA (D) THR. LRS. VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ORS. 2019 (9) TMI 1716 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court has reiterated that Article 235 of the Constitution of India vests control of the subordinate Courts upon the High Courts. The High Courts exercise disciplinary powers over the subordinate Courts. High Courts ought not to take action against judicial officers only because wrong orders are passed To err is human and not one of us, who has held judicial office, can claim that we have never passed a wrong order . The report of the Enquiry Committee as also the decision of the High Court is quashed and set aside - the consequences of setting-aside of such order of punishment shall follow and the petitioner shall be entitled to his pension - petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The legal judgment involves the issue of disciplinary action against a retired Judicial Officer resulting in the withdrawal of his entire pension. Details of the judgment: 1. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings: A proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 for granting bail to an accused with fake currency and discharging another accused with narcotics possession. 2. Charges against the petitioner: The charges against the petitioner included inappropriate bail and discharge decisions, indicating extraneous considerations and gross judicial impropriety. 3. Previous proceedings: The High Court quashed the initial report and ordered a fresh enquiry due to procedural irregularities in the first round of departmental proceedings. 4. Inquiry report: The Inquiry Officer submitted a report finding the charges proved, leading to a show-cause notice to the petitioner and the subsequent withdrawal of his pension by the Standing Committee of the High Court. 5. Judicial orders: The judgment highlighted instances where bail was granted without proper evidence and an accused was discharged despite being a permanent absconder, leading to questions of judicial impropriety. 6. Legal considerations: The judgment referenced legal precedents cautioning against disciplinary action solely based on wrong judgments, emphasizing the need for evidence of extraneous reasons for disciplinary measures. 7. Decision of the Court: The Court found insufficient evidence of extraneous considerations in the petitioner's orders, leading to the quashing of the enquiry report and the decision to withdraw the pension. 8. Legal principles: The judgment reiterated the importance of protecting judicial officers from unwarranted complaints and disciplinary actions based solely on wrong orders without evidence of misconduct. 9. Final decision: The Court quashed the enquiry report and the decision to withdraw the pension, allowing the petitioner to retain his pension entitlement. 10. Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, and any related interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
