Supreme Court Stays Disciplinary Proceedings Against Labour Judge, Issues Notice To Madras High Court

A three Judge Bench of CJI Bobde, Justice Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian has also ordered a stay on impugned order of the High Court dated 25th Aug 2020 whereby HC had refused to quash the disciplinary proceedings and charge memo framed against the Labour Judge, holding that it was a premature stage for the petitioner to raise any plea with regard to any infirmity in the initiation of the Disciplinary Proceedings.

The petitioner Judge was represented by Senior Advocate V Prakash and Advocate Senthil Jagdeesan before the Supreme Court

The disciplinary action was initiated against the Labour Judge, for an order passed by him setting aside dismissal of a workman on the ground that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were unsustainable in law. The High Court had held that the Labour Judge had deliberately overlooked the Report of the Enquiry officer and drew adverse inference against the Management, inspite of availability of abundant evidence.

Before the Madras High Court, a plea was filed by the District Judge, assailing the charge memorandum dated 29th June 2020 levelling allegations of serious misconduct while discharging his judicial duties as the Presiding Officer of the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

According to the petitioner, the High Court failed to appreciate that the charge memo suffers from several infirmities both procedural and substantive in nature. It failed to appreciate that the division Bench had in its order had observed that the action could be taken against the petitioner on the administrative side "in case there is material to that affect". However the assailed charge memo was filed in complete disregard of the High Court's direction and relies only on order of the Single Judge whereby it had refused to expunge remarks made against the petitioner.

The present plea has stated that annexure II of the charge memo comprising of the statements of imputations in support of the charge is completely against the directions of the division Bench.

The plea has argued that the entire process cumulonimbus in passing of the award by the petitioner was in exercise of powers vested in a Presiding officer under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules 1958.

According to the petitioner, the High Court should have appreciated that a charge memo ought not to be issued against a judicial or quasi judicial authority merely because there is some mistake or error in passing the orders. The top Court has ok several occasions disapproved the practice of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against officers of subordinate judiciary merely because the judgements or orders passed by them are wrong.

The plea has cited Supreme Court's observation in case of Zunjarro Bhikaji Nagarkar vs Union of India where it was observed that if every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers.

Facts: An award was rendered by the petitioner judge dated 28th June 2016 in the case of M.Palanisamy v. The Management, World Vision India, Chennai, where the dismissal of the workman was set aside on the ground that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were unsustainable in law, and since the Management had failed to produce vital records and justify the findings, reinstatement was ordered with only 25% back wages.

When the award was challenged by the Management before the High Court, a Single Judge, passed an order of interim stay. After perusal of the entire records received from the labour Court, the High Court was of the prima facie opinion that the Labour Judge had deliberately overlooked the Report of the Enquiry officer and drew adverse inference against the Management, inspite of availability of abundant evidence. The court observed that the Labour Judge for some other unknown reason, had given such finding against the Management and directed the matter to be placed before the Administrative side of the High Court to take departmental action against the Labour Judge.

A show cause notice was then issued to him by the Judicial Officer and he had submitted his explanation. He then approached the High Court seeking to expunge the remarks made against the him in the High Court's order dated and to direct the administrative side of the High Court to give up the proceedings bearing initiated against the him.

A miscellaneous petition was then filed by the Labour Judge before the High Court against the disciplinary action order, where the Court reiterated that the Judicial officer is being given an opportunity by way of show cause notice and the remarks made by the High Court were only prima facie and not a conclusive one and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The Court had given the petitioner, the liberty to putforth his case before the administrative side of the High Court, and had directed a copy of the petition to expunge the remarks filed by the Judicial Officer to be placed before the administrative side of the Court conducting enquiry against the petitioner.

The petitioner had filed an appeal before the High Court where a division Bench had observed that before passing any adverse remarks or strictures, the Judicial Officer had to be put to notice. The appeal was allowed on the short ground that no notice was issued by the Court before passing the remarks, observing that the remarks made in the order would not bind the High Court on the administrative side for taking any independent action in case there was material to that effect.

The High Court however resolved to proceed against the petitioner on the administrative side and, accordingly, suspended him on 11th March 2020, followed by a charge memo dated 29th June 2020. When the petitioner challenged the charge memo before the High Court, it held that it was a premature stage for the petitioner to raise any plea with regard to any infirmity in the initiation of the Disciplinary Proceedings or the issuance of the charge-memo to which a reply can be given by him for explaining his stand. Hence a plea was filed before the Supreme Court