Disciplinary Proceedings Against Judicial Officer Can't Be Quashed Merely For Absence Of Affidavit Supporting Allegations: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings initiated against a judicial officer cannot be quashed merely because the allegations, on the basis of which the action was taken, was not supported by a duly sworn-in affidavit.While dismissing the plea of a sitting judicial officer to quash a disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam...
The Orissa High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings initiated against a judicial officer cannot be quashed merely because the allegations, on the basis of which the action was taken, was not supported by a duly sworn-in affidavit.
While dismissing the plea of a sitting judicial officer to quash a disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held,
“While the guideline aims to protect judicial officers from unwarranted harassment, it does not eliminate the possibility of addressing genuine issues faced by individuals or communities due to the actions of a judicial officer. The High Court retains the take appropriate action based on verified facts. The requirement for sworn affidavits and verifiable material ensures that the process is fair and that decisions are not arbitrary.”
Factual Background
The petitioner while was working as the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Khariar in the district of Nuapada was subjected to a complaint made by the Secretary of the Judicial Bar Association, Khariar. In the said letter, serious concerns were raised about the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner and a request was made to the Chief Justice to cause an enquiry against him.
Looking into the allegations made in the letter, the Court decided to ascertain the authenticity of the same and for that purpose, it directed the District & Sessions Judge, Nuapada to conduct an enquiry and submit his report.
The District Judge conducted an enquiry examining eight advocates, including four advocates who were signatory to the complaint-letter. The Court then asked the District Judge to provide specific comments on his preliminary enquiry and obtain a reply from the petitioner regarding the allegations.
In response thereto, the District Judge provided his comments and the petitioner also filed his reply to the allegations made against him, whereby he termed the allegations to be vague and baseless and refuted the accusations out-rightly.
After receipt of the response from the petitioner, the Court initiated a disciplinary proceeding against him primarily basing upon the preliminary enquiry report of the District Judge. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceeding.
Contentions of the Parties
Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner assailed the very initiation of the disciplinary proceeding on the sole ground that the complaint was not supported by sworn affidavits and is in derogation of the guidelines issued by the Chief Justice of India in a letter dated 03.10.2014.
To that effect, the senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suchismita Misra v. High Court of Orissa & Ors. and the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Dhananjay Chaturvedi v. High Court of Uttarakhand.
Per contra, the Rabi Narayan Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate argued that although the complaint lacked sworn affidavits, its authenticity is supported by it having been sent on the official letter-head of the Judicial Bar Association, duly signed by both the President and the Secretary of the Bar Association.
Thus, he asserted that the departmental proceeding was initiated based on verifiable material and a thorough enquiry to ensure legitimacy, including the examination of relevant witnesses and gathering of sufficient evidence to support the charges.
Court's Findings
The Court, at the outset, considered the guideline issued by the CJI in 2014 wherein he categorically directed the High Courts not to entertain any complaint against any judicial officer unless it is accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable material to substantiate the allegation.
Interpreting the said guideline, the Court was of the view that a complaint cannot be dismissed in limine only because it is not supported by sworn affidavits. Accordingly, it held:
“It emerges, that, merely because a complaint is not supported by sworn affidavits, it does not automatically warrant an outright dismissal. In the complete and comprehensive reading of the said guideline, a complaint is not supposed to be ignored from its very inception without even verifying the legitimacy of the complaint as nowhere in the guideline the High Court is debarred from initiating its own enquiry over any complaint where the allegations prima facie reveals verifiable material supporting the complaint subject to an enquiry on the authenticity of the allegations against a concerned judicial officer.”
In the present case, the Court observed, the complaint was duly signed by several members of the Bar, thus providing verifiable materials to substantiate the allegations. The Bench further underlined that “Sd/-” notation was made on the complaint which signifies that the signatory has approved the document.
“In this case, the resolution by the Judicial Bar Association, Khariar, contains this notation, indicating approval by the signatory. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that several members of the Bar have actually signed the said resolution, reinforcing its legitimacy. Additionally, the complaint letter and all other communications sent to this Court bear the valid stamp and signature of the learned Secretaries of both the Khariar Bar Association and Judicial Bar Association, Khariar further validating the authenticity of the documents,” it added.
Above all, it held that even though the complaint was received under the letter-head of the Judicial Bar, still the Court deemed it proper to verify the authenticity of the same through the District Judge. It clarified that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the basis of the preliminary findings of the District Judge.
“This process ensured that the proceedings were not influenced by vested interests or personal agendas, thereby aligning with the guideline to maintain fairness and non-arbitrariness in handling complaints against judicial officers. Therefore, the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the Petitioner was neither defective nor illegal, complying fully with the guideline issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India,” it said.
Resultantly, dismissing the plea of the petitioner to quash the disciplinary proceeding, the Court concluded:
“Given the gravity of the allegations and the substantial evidence collected during the enquiry, prima facie there appeared material that the Petitioner's behaviour is inconsistent with the expectations and responsibilities of a judicial officer, undermining the integrity and reputation of the judiciary, warranting strict disciplinary action.”
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Agarwal v. Orissa High Court, Cuttack & Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 17678 of 2024
Date of Judgment: August 08, 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Rabi Narayan Mishra, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 68