Disciplinary Authority/Full Court Not Obligated To Give Reasons For Rejecting Representation: Allahabad HC Upholds Dismissal Of District Judge
While upholding dismissal of judicial officer on charges of demand of dowry and trying to influence his subordinate in a case instituted by his wife, the Allahabad High Court held that Disciplinary Authority being Full Court of the High Court is not obligated to supply reasons for rejecting the comments made by the delinquent judicial officer on the inquiry report.Relying on the decisions of...
While upholding dismissal of judicial officer on charges of demand of dowry and trying to influence his subordinate in a case instituted by his wife, the Allahabad High Court held that Disciplinary Authority being Full Court of the High Court is not obligated to supply reasons for rejecting the comments made by the delinquent judicial officer on the inquiry report.
Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others, and the decision of a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court in Madhav Prasad v. Deputy Director, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that “the Disciplinary Authority / Full Court was not obligated to record its express reasons-to reject the representation made by the delinquent or to accept the Inquiry Report or to award particular penalty.”
Upholding the disciplinary proceedings as fair and proper, the Court held that the petitioner had abused the opportunity of hearing granted to him and made a mockery of law by seeking numerous adjournments and delaying the proceedings by 3 years.
Perusing the evidence on record, the Court held that the charges against the petitioner, senior judicial officer, were made out.
“It needs no emphasis that a judicial office may remain distant and pure – unaffected and immune to personal gain and/or loss. Any transgression committed by a judicial officer to extract any benefit for the self or for the benefit of those to whom the judicial officer may be closely related, would always be dealt with most severely. Once the 'bad fish' is identified, it may not be retained in the 'tank'.”
The Court further held that there is no room to allow a judicial officer to influence another judicial officer in exercise of his/her judicial functions.
“If there exists a temple of justice, judicial officers must act like its high priests who must not only conduct the rituals involving discharge of their duties on the dias but they must zealously guard the purity of the temple itself. A judicial officer who defiles his office, merits no mercy.”
Factual Background
Petitioner was serving as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut when he was first issued a chargesheet on 08.08.2016 alleging he along with his brother and other family members had demanded dowry at the time of his brother's wedding. It was alleged that petitioner along with his Petitioner's brother, who was a Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Meerut then, had tried to influence the investigating officer and misuse their position in judiciary.
Subsequently, a second chargesheet was also issued to the petitioner alleging that he had tried to influence the judge hearing the case which was filed by his wife and had made false allegations against the Magistrate adjudicating the case.
Pursuant to both chargesheets, inquiries were carried out in Allahabad and in Lucknow by different Judges and inquiry reports were provided to the petitioner for his comments. Thereafter, cases were placed before the Full Court wherein it was resolved to remove the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The State Government approved the dismissal order. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Relevant Law
Article 311 of the Constitution provides that any member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State cannot be dismissed from service by an authority subordinate to its appointing authority and without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing after informing him of any inquiry against him/her.
Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 provides for actions to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority if he accepts or rejects the Inquiry Report. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 9 provides that if upon perusal of the inquiry report, Disciplinary Authority feels that punishment under Rule 3 is to be given and sub-Rule (2) (rejection of any charge in the inquiry report) has been invoked, it must give a copy of the inquiry report along with its findings to the delinquent to furnish a reply to the same, if any. Thereafter, considering the entire record, the Disciplinary Authority may award one or more punishments, as it deems fit.
High Court Verdict
In Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, the Supreme Court had held that even though by 42nd Amendment, the opportunity of hearing at the stage of disciplinary proceedings was done away with, the same remains an essential requirement of principles of natural justice. The Apex Court held that despite amendment to Article 311, delinquent remains entitled to a copy of the Inquiry Report and an opportunity to reply to the same.
Though in the case of the petitioner opportunity to reply to the inquiry report was granted, the Court observed that the requirement to give an opportunity to respond to the inquiry report has not been prohibited by the Constitutional amendment. The Court observed that it is upon the legislative bodies to enact laws which mandate such opportunity in disciplinary proceedings.
Holding that Rule 9(4) of the Rules was dependent on invocation of Rule 9(2) of the Rules, the Court held that even though the Rules don't contemplate the scenario where the Disciplinary Authority wants to proceed in agreement with the Inquiry Report, the same is governed by Article 311 of the Constitution.
“In view of that higher law existing, lack of statutory law (either by principal legislature or its delegate) would make no difference. Consequently, where the Disciplinary Authority intends to agree with the Inquiry Report – concluding the guilt of a delinquent, the Disciplinary Authority may proceed in accordance with procedure prescribed under Article 311 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra). That circumstance not provided by Rule 9 of the Rules would remain governed by the Constitutional provision (Article 311), as interpreted by the Supreme Court.”
Further the Court held that in the present case, an order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority which was the original authority and not an appellate authority affirming or rejecting the order of a subordinate authority which required detailed reasons to be recorded.
The Court relied on Umesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others, where the Allahabad High Court had dealt with a similar issue of penalty being awarded to a Judicial Officer and the lack of reasons given for the same. It was held that since the Disciplinary Authority adopts the order of the Inquiry Officer, reasons and conclusions given by the Inquiry Officer are adopted and no new reasons are necessary to be given by the Disciplinary Authority.
Accordingly, the Court held that for the Full Court acting as Disciplinary Authority, it was not necessary to provide reasons for rejecting the representations given by the petitioner.
The Court further held that to challenge a domestic inquiry, it must be shown by the delinquent that it is vitiated. A fair and proper domestic inquiry cannot be interfered with. The Court observed that in judicial review, the Court was only to see if the disciplinary proceedings were fair and proper.
Examining the records of the case, the Court held that the disciplinary inquiry was fair and proper and opportunity of hearing that was given to the petitioner was “much more than fair or deserved or warranted.”
The Court held that the petitioner had deliberately not participated in the proceedings and sought multiple adjournments to avoid the proceedings. The Court observed that though ex-parte proceedings could have been concluded against the petitioner, the Inquiry Judge gave him ample opportunity to present his case.
“The petitioner offered an unrepentant conduct that may only be described – in one word, as 'incorrigible'. Therefore, the petitioner may never claim that he was not heard - on one date or another. No order passed by the Inquiry Judge 'A' may be read in isolation and the petitioner may not be permitted to falsely exaggerate the alleged adverse consequence visited on him by such order. On the whole and consistently as also on purpose, the petitioner is seen wholly and solely responsible for the consequence of ex parte Inquiry Report that came to be visited on him.”
After considering the record of the inquiry proceedings, the Court held that inquiry reports cannot be said to be conjectural. The Court also observed that the petitioner had called the ACJM dealing with his case through his wife's lawyer not in a capacity of a senior to the ACJM but as the husband of the complainant.
“The inviolable code of conduct and self-restraint to be always maintained by any human being who may ever come to occupy a judicial office, is seen clearly and irreparably violated, by the petitioner. In committing that transgression, the petitioner earned absolute demerit. It rendered him unfit to hold judicial office, any further. As with the mythological 'Shishupal', so with the petitioner, he made that 'one' transgression that could not be spared.”
The Court relied on Registrar General High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad and Others, where the Apex Court elaborated the scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Holding that sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in both inquiries, and the charges stood proved against him, the bench headed by Justice Singh dismissed the writ petition upholding the dismissal of the petitioner.
Case Title: Umesh Kumar Sirohi v. State Of U P And Another [WRIT - A No. - 10665 of 2021]