Chhattisgarh HC Affirms Single-Judge's Order Upholding Dismissal Of Judicial Officer Who Lodged Criminal Case Against HC Judges

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu observed that the single Judge's order was based on applying a judicious mind, considering the law applicable to the facts of the case and relying upon the precedents on the subject.

In its 74-page Judgment, the Court held that where it is reasonably impractical to have the departmental inquiry, the employer is empowered to dismiss or remove a person under clause (2)(b) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

For context, Clause (2)(b) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India reads thus:

“Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry”

In its judgment in the appeal, the Division bench noted that there were sufficient germane reasons available on records, which led to the Full Court recommending the dismissal of the appellant invoking under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, dispensing with the departmental enquiry.

The Court observed that the appellant, a judicial officer, frequently made adverse comments about colleagues and superiors, issued unauthorized representations to the Chief Justice of India, and lodged a criminal complaint against numerous senior officials, including judges and police officers and despite previous penalties, including a stoppage of increment, his conduct had led the High Court to recommend his dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, indicating his unfitness for the role.

The background of the case

Prabhakar Gwal, who was a judicial officer in Chhattisgarh, was dismissed from service after the Full Court recommended his dismissal without inquiry after it found that he, through his wife, filed a criminal case against many persons, including the then Chief Justice and a senior judge of the High Court. Gwal then challenged this dismissal order before the High Court.

In its August 2020 order, the Single Judge, while dismissing his writ petition, observed that Article 311(2) was attracted in this case as Gwal had acted deliberately, knowing fully the repercussions of his act.

The Single Judge had also said there were reasons germane available in the records, which led to the Full Court recommending the dismissal of the petitioner invoking Article 311(2).

Challenging the single Judge's order, Gwal moved an appeal before the Division bench, in which his counsel argued that the Single Judge passed the impugned judgment by misinterpreting Article 311 of the Constitution of India and against the settled principles of law.

It was also alleged that the Single Judge passed the impugned order with a view to please the present 12th senior most Judge of the Supreme Court, against whom a complaint case was filed by the wife of the appellant/petitioner, and to display his over-allegiance to that Justice and with an intent to secure promotion through him.

It was also contended that the Single Judge had acted improperly by participating in the Full Court Meeting that recommended the appellant's dismissal and then presiding over the case as a judge in his writ petition challenging his termination.

Lastly, it was submitted that the Single judge's actions, including failing to question the lack of a departmental inquiry and withholding documents, suggested a bias and a failure to act impartially.

High Court's observations

Having considered the arguments of his counsel, the Court, at the outset, observed that it was not one act on the part of the petitioner which had forced the Full Court of the High Court to recommend the dismissal of the petitioner invoking Article 311(2).

Instead, the Court further noted that it was a case where there are a series of correspondences repeatedly casting serious insinuations, making unscrupulous allegations and obnoxious comments, all of which are false, scurrilous and malicious against the Chief Justice of the High Court, as also the senior Judges of the High Court, so also against the senior Judicial Officers in the Higher Judicial Service, as also against the colleagues in the Lower Judicial Service.

Thus, the Court opined that there were sufficient germane reasons available on records, which led to the Full Court recommending the dismissal of the appellant invoking under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, dispensing with the departmental enquiry.

The Court further noted that an inquiry is conducted to address allegations or charges of misconduct against a delinquent officer, allowing the officer to defend themselves and challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution or department; however, in the instant case, the allegation against the appellant was just not that of having committed a misconduct and rather it is a case “where it is the behaviour of the judicial officer particularly his conduct and the manner in which he conducted himself more, which has forced the High Court to reach to the conclusion that the appellant is a person not fit to remain in judicial service”.

“An officer of the subordinate judiciary if he shows the courage to file a criminal case against the Chief Justice of the High Court along with another senior Judge of the High Court and a host of senior high ranking officers of the State Government making all of them as accused persons, it does not need any imagination that continuing the officer in the judicial service with his magisterial and judicial powers he would have created havoc and would have brought much embarrassment to the institution. If we look into the various correspondences that the appellant has made to the High Court and on certain occasions correspondences directly made to the Chief Justice of India and the language of all would itself clearly show that the officer was never submissive in his approach and at the same time, he was also using foul language and most of the time the averments in his reply to the show cause notices was out of context. The Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the Court and another outside the Court. They are supposed to have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot even remotely act in a manner unworthy of the judicial officer and the office that they occupied,” the Court further remarked.

Against this backdrop, the court dismissed the appellant-judicial officer's appeal, taking into account his behaviour and finding all contentions raised by him challenging a single judge's order liable to be dismissed.

Case title - Prabhakar Gwal vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Case citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order