Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC's Orders For Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lakshadweep Judicial Officer
The Supreme Court recently set aside orders for disciplinary proceedings against a Judicial Officer, noting that the records pertaining to the case alleged to have been mishandled by him were not considered by the Kerala High Court at the time of passing of orders for suspension and enquiry. The same rendered the initiation of disciplinary proceedings legally invalid, the Court said.A bench...
The Supreme Court recently set aside orders for disciplinary proceedings against a Judicial Officer, noting that the records pertaining to the case alleged to have been mishandled by him were not considered by the Kerala High Court at the time of passing of orders for suspension and enquiry. The same rendered the initiation of disciplinary proceedings legally invalid, the Court said.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was dealing with the case of a suspended Sub-Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
Against him, two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution were filed before the Kerala High Court by 11 convicted persons, alleging that he, as a Judicial Magistrate, rendered the order of conviction without examining the Investigating Officer and/or affording opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witness.
Initially, on 14.12.2022, the High Court adjourned the matter, requisitioning records from the court of the CJM, Amini, Lakshadweep, in a sealed cover. However, when the matter was next listed on 23.12.2022, the Court passed orders directing the Lakshadweep administration to place the appellant under suspension and ordered a detailed inquiry on his conduct as a Judicial Officer.
The appellant preferred two review petitions, however, the same were only partly allowed, substituting the Kerala High Court as the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate action against him.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. It was contended that the High Court passed the order dated 23.12.2022 (directing suspension and enquiry), even though records were requisitioned from the Court of the CJM, Lakshadweep on the preceding date and not received by the said date (ie 23.12.2022).
Going through the case records, the Supreme Court noted that the matter was adjourned by the High Court on 14.12.2022, with the tentative next date of hearing set as 05.01.2023. However, this date was not reflected in the order.
It called an affidavit from the Registrar General of the High Court of Kerala, who stated that as per directions in order dated 14.12.2022, records were called from the CJM Court, Amini, Lakshadweep on 15.12.2022 and the sealed cover containing records was received in the High Court on 26.12.2022.
As such, the Supreme Court observed, the records from the CJM Court were received in the High Court on 26.12.2022, but order directing suspension and enquiry of the appellant was rendered prior to such receipt, on 23.12.2022.
Accordingly, it was of the opinion that disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were initiated on the basis of a legally invalid order.
"The adjudication of the matter on 23.12.2022, in the absence of the complete records being reviewed, would render the said order dated 23.12.2022 legally invalid and is liable to be set aside," the court said.
Under these circumstances, and upon being apprised that the proceedings for appellant's enquiry under Section 340 CrPC had been dropped, the top Court allowed the appeal(s) and set aside the decision dated 23.12.2022 as well as the orders passed in the review petitions. The original petitions were restored to their original numbers and the Chief Justice of the High Court directed to issue appropriate orders for their early hearing.
Appearance: Senior Advocate CU Singh (for appellant); Senior Advocate PN Ravindran (for High Court of Kerala); Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant (for respondent Nos. 1 and 3-15).
Case Title: K. CHERIYA KOYA VERSUS MOHAMMED NAZER M.P. & ORS. ETC., SLP (CRL.) NO(S).11916-11919/2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 789