Preposterous To Assume Judges Can't Commit Mistake While Passing Orders: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Compulsory Retirement Of ADJ After 9 Yrs
Rajasthan High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon an Additional District and Sessions Judge in 2015 for allowing the second bail application filed by a murder accused, despite having knowledge of the fact that the first bail application was rejected by the High Court and there was a pending transfer petition in front of the High Court.The division bench...
Rajasthan High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon an Additional District and Sessions Judge in 2015 for allowing the second bail application filed by a murder accused, despite having knowledge of the fact that the first bail application was rejected by the High Court and there was a pending transfer petition in front of the High Court.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the Enquiry Judge did not find any material to conclude that the order passed in the 2nd bail petition was actuated by corrupt motive.
The Court held that if an order was passed without there being any corrupt motive, it could not be a ground to initiate a disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer.
“No one is infallible and the Constitution itself provides the hierarchy of Courts and a provision for review under Article 137. To err is human and it would be really preposterous to assume that a judicial officer cannot commit mistake of any kind in passing the judicial orders. A mistake committed by the judicial officer may some time seem to be an intolerable error but the right course to deal with such a situation would be to correct the mistake and to ensure dignity of the Court.”
The petition was filed against an order of Governor of Rajasthan passing punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. When the petitioner was posted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, he had rejected the 1st bail petition of a murder accused against which the appeal was also dismissed by the Court.
Subsequently, the complainant in that case appeared in the proceedings for the accused's 2nd bail petition to seek adjournment on the grounds that a transfer petition was pending before the High Court, however, the Court allowed the second bail petition.
This order was challenged by the complainant and the bail granted was set aside by the High Court. The order granting the bail was put in front of the Chief Justice and an inquiry was directed against the petitioner. Charges were framed against him of committing gross misconduct, judicial indiscipline and impropriety and that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and dignity of the office. This inquiry resulted in him being awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement.
The Court highlighted the spirit and importance of inquiry report and the duty of the inquiry officer and opined that an inquiry officer was not a prosecutor who had to assume that the delinquent employee was guilty of misconduct. Instead, an inquiry officer needed to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case as a rational and prudent man and draw his conclusions based on proper reasoning and logic.
In this light, the Court perused the inquiry report and observed that the gist of the inquiry report was that the petitioner was required to wait for the outcome of the transfer petition and it was gross misconduct on his part to decide the 2nd bail petition. However, the Enquiry judge brushed aside petitioner's stand that by way of transfer petition, the complainant was causing delay in the progress of the case. The transfer petition was pending in the High Court for six months because the complainant stopped pursuing the same after filing it. The Court held that,
“This is well remembered that timeline for disposal of bail petitions has been fixed by the High Courts and time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed9 that the bail petitions in subordinate Courts should ordinarily be decided within one week and in the High Courts within two or three weeks as far as practicable…transfer petition was listed for hearing on as many as 21 occasions between 21st May 2010 and 16th November 2011 when it was eventually dismissed as infructuous…This is one of the canons of judicial ethics that the judicial officers perform their duties without unnecessary delays and ensure that the justice is not delayed.”
The Court held that mere pendency of the transfer petition was not such a compelling reason for the petitioner not to deal with the 2nd bail petition. In this background, the Court held that there was hardly any material against the petitioner to conclude that entertaining 2nd bail application was an act of misconduct.
It was further held that it was one thing to say that the view taken by the petitioner was not correct but to attribute any motive to him in dealing the 2nd bail petition was a different matter. The Court stated that it was lawful for the departmental authority to pass an order of punishment against a delinquent employee provided there was some evidence. In a case in which punishment of compulsory retirement was passed based on an inquiry report, which in itself was based on no evidence, then the writ court must remedy the mistake by the departmental authority.
“For a robust and impartial subordinate judiciary, it is necessary that the High Court remains alive to the ground realities and should not encourage frivolous complaints. Else, the judicial officers would be in a state of dilemma in every case dealt with by them and it would be really difficult for them to discharge their duty in an independent manner. Indeed, the subordinate judicial officers look upon the High Court for guidance and protection from desperate complaints.”
The Court also referred to the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v S. Shree Rama Rao in which it was held that the High Court was not a court of appeal for decision of the authority holding departmental inquiry against a public servant. However, where the departmental authority failed to consider a material fact that would change the decision, then that shall be error in law and the High Court shall be justified in interfering with the order of the punishment.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and set aside the order of punishment passed against the petitioner.
Title: Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 350