9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment of acquittal in a case instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (in short the N.I. Act), which led to the setting up of a departmental proceeding against her for having acquitted the accused for extraneous consideration and not relying on the materials on record for coming to her conclusion. 3. The departmental proceeding ended in the inquiry authority having concluded a serious lapse on the part of the proceedee, which was indicative of no proper verification or consideration of records/evidence, implying grave negligence and, in turn, leading to the only inference of not having shown absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The officer was found to have depicted lack of judicial fairness which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer which conclusion was accepted by the disciplinary authority and she was subjected to the penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 11 (ix) contained in Part-V of the Bihar Judicial Service (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 2020. 4. The afore-noted decision of the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the Standing Committee of the Patna High Court. 5. We have examined the judgment delivered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amely, the Advocate through whom the complaint case was filed and two of the witnesses in such case and found that the judgment of acquittal was passed in a reckless manner, indicative of collusion with the accused person and the same reflected judicial unfairness. The Enquiry Officer also found that despite ample opportunity granted to the poroceedee to produce evidence in her defence, she did not chose to examine any witness but placed certain documents on record, most of which were the copies of her ACRs. of successive years and her self assessment reports of various quarters of successive years in her service. 11. During the proceeding, the proceedee took the plea that the documents contained in Exhibits-1 to 4 were not available on record on the date of the judgment and only therefore she could not take it into consideration. She referred to it as a bona fide mistake. 12. In her (the petitioner / proceedee / Judicial Officer) Court, there was tremendous work load and therefore she could not find out that the records were not available as it had gone in the Copying Department. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, noted that Exhibits-1 to 4 were complete in itself so far as evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said date. The complainant and the defence were heard on different dates and the judgment of acquittal was pronounced in open Court on 26.08.2017. 16. Under such circumstances, it has been urged that it was only a bona fide mistake that the documents which were on record could not be noticed. It has further been urged that merely because of this lapse on her part, no act of dishonesty or any misdemeanor could be attributed to her reflecting badly on her judicial conduct so as to be shown the door finally. It has further been submitted that even in a quasi judicial proceeding, like domestic enquiry/departmental proceeding, there is no place of any inference and the finding of guilt has to be on the basis of materials brought in such proceeding. 17. True it is that the manner of proving such misconduct may not be the same as is practised in criminal cases; nonetheless, there has to be some evidence on record and the decisions with respect to such materials have to be taken on objective standards with preponderance of evidence in sight. 18. There has never been, the petitioner argues, any instance where she has been subjected to such departmental proceeding for a lapse in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 22. In K. P. Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.; 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 540, 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 High Court went on to observe that one gets the impression that the Judicial Officer has been won over and, therefore he was open to write any judgment or order, releasing the accused on bail. The inference of the High Court was that such an act not only reflected that the Judicial Officer had shown disregard to the law and the judicial process, but it also raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be proved like in a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, but since this is in the nature of a quasi judicial function, the Enquiry Officer must arrive at a conclusion on the basis of materials on record. While testing such decision-making in a departmental proceeding, the only thing what a Court has to see is to ascertain whether the conclusion reached against the proceedee is based on fact or set of facts on which any prudent person would have arrived at the same result. (refer to Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat Anr.; (2013) 4 SCC 301 and M. V. Bijlani Vs. The Union of India Ors.; (2006) 5 SCC 88). 26. In fact, the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Singh Vs. High Court of Allahabad; (2007) 4 SCC 247 has specifically disapproved the practice of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Officers of subordinate judiciary merely because the judgments/orders passed by them are wrong. The logic behind such verdict is that the appellate and revisional Courts have been established to rectify the mistakes committed by the Judge of the first jurisdiction. For taking disciplinary action based on judicial orders, extra care and caution is required. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner 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. 32. For our own satisfaction, we have gone through the materials which have been exhibited at the instance of the Judicial Officer, though under protest, by the disciplinary authority, that never in the past, the Officer had been charged with anything to be desired regarding her integrity. This was a solitary instance and not a repeated case of such unmerited acquittals. Even if it is assumed that the lapse was reckless, it would still be a venial lapse. Lest we may not be misunderstood and taken amiss, we clarify that a Judicial Officer has to guard against many such peccadilloes while dispensing with the judicial function but for a solitary act of recklessness, it would be unjust to the Judicial Officer to be shown the door at such an early stage in service. 33. We, therefore, are not in agreement with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority for revisiting the quantum of sentence which would be appropriate in the aforesaid case displaying a non-judicial approach while deciding a case even if it were a case involving lower quantum of money. 40. After having given anxious consideration over such suggestion, we find 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. 41. Thus, exercising our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we set aside the decision of compulsory retiring the petitioner and modify the sentence by directing for withholding of three increments of pay with cumulative effect. 42. The petitioner should immediately but be inducted in the service. 43. The petitioner, however, shall not be paid for the period that sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
