9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y are based on conjectures and surmises and not on facts. The High Court found that there was material for the inquiry officer to reach the conclusions adverse to the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated, inter alia, on complaints made by two Advocates, namely, V.K.Tiwari and Rajiv Kumar Singh. Nine charges were leveled against the appellant, seven of them pertain to orders of bail granted in 19 cases. During his tenure of two years at Etah, the appellant is stated to have disposed of over 3,000 bail applications. Only 19 bail orders out of these 3000 bail applications were the subject matter of charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer, however, found that in 7 cases, orders of bail were prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted at the first stage itself. However, no specific material was brought on record to show or prove that there were any mala fide or extraneous reasons on the part of the appellant in passing the orders. The test to be adopted in such cases is as stated by this Court in the cases of Union of India Ors. vs. A.N.Saxena, 1992 (3) SCC 124 and Union of India Anr. vs. K.K.Dhawan, 1993 (2) SCC 56. In K.K.Dhawans case [supra], this Court indicated the basis upon which a disciplinary action can be initiated in respect of a judicial or a quasi- judicial action as follows : (i) where the judicial officer has conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; (ii) that there is pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case, though elaborate enquiry has been conducted by the Enquiry Officer, there is hardly any material worth the name forthcoming except to scrutinize each one of the orders made by the appellant on the judicial side to arrive at a different conclusion. That there was possibility on a given set of facts to arrive at a different conclusion is no ground to indict a judicial officer for taking one view and that too for alleged misconduct for that reason alone. The Enquiry Officer has not found any other material, which would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or devotion to duty or that he has been actuated by any corrupt motive. At best he may say that the view taken by the appellant is not proper or correct and not att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al powers and that matter cannot be treated as misconduct at all. How the Enquiry Officer could arrive at a finding that it is falling in one of the categories mentioned above surpasses our comprehension. The last charge is to the effect that the appellant had appointed a mali [gardener] on a temporary basis for a period of 3-12 months at a time when he was Incharge District Judge. The action of the appellant was too trivial to call for any action because the appointment made by him was not pursuant to any improper motives such as illegal gratification or otherwise. How the same amounts to misconduct is not clear to us at all except to state that he was only Incharge District Judge. Thus we find that the findings recorded by the Enqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
