No Disciplinary Action Against Judge Merely Because 'Wrong Order' Has Been Passed: Gujarat High Court Reinstates Judicial Officer

The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (July 9) reinstated a judicial officer dismissed from service for alleged misconduct, engaging in corrupt practices and dereliction of duty wherein he purportedly forced a party to handover seized oil-tankers to its owners which were booked for theft of high-speed diesel, terming it unfair and unlawful. The court further emphasized that unless there are clear-cut allegations of misconduct, disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated "merely on the basis that a wrong order" has been passed by the judicial officer or on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect, or that they have been negligent in ignoring any fact. The court observed that allegations of extraneous influences, corrupt practice must be proved by persuasive evidence, not through "surmises and conjectures". A division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice RT Vachchani in its order said:"The foregoing authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, when applied to the facts of the present case, lead to only one inescapable conclusion—that the impugned order of dismissal is not founded on any legally admissible evidence and rests entirely on the ipse dixit, conjectures, and surmises of the Disciplinary Authority. In fact, this is a classic case of no evidence. None of the parties to the proceedings were aggrieved by the orders passed by the petitioner in the discharge of his judicial functions. However, we may add a caveat, that the accusation of extraneous consideration or corrupt practice emerging from anonymous complaint cannot be ignored merely because all the parties to the proceedings have accepted the decision of the Court. There may be cases, where the parties to the proceedings may have acted in sync or in connivance to obtain an order, and none of them may take risk to challenge the order/decision. In such cases, the High Court cannot remain mute spectator, and allow the misconduct to be perpetuated by sitting idle on any complaint even anonymous, if the allegations prima facie appear to be true. In the present case, we do not and these elements emerging from the evidence". Considering the merits of the matter and material on record, and noting the settled principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court, the bench opined that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the findings and dismissal order are unsustainable in law, and demands interference. "We declare that the disciplinary proceedings initiated and concluded vide charge-sheet dated 23.10.2008 against the petitioner as unfair and unjust. As a sequel, we quash and set aside the Notification dated 06.05.2011 imposing the punishment of dismissal under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971," the court said. BackgroundThe petitioner judicial officer had moved the high court challenging a May 6, 2011 notification passed by the state government based on a recommendation made by the respondent No.2 High Court, imposing "punishment of dismissal" on the petitioner under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1971. The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in 1996. He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2005. A charge-sheet dated 23.10.2008 was issued to the petitioner, while he was serving as an Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, District Kachchh at Bhuj alleging that he had granted an ex-parte mandatory injunction on 27.08.2007 to the plaintiffs in a civil suit (owners of the tankers) despite being fully aware that a criminal complaint regarding the theft of oil from two tankers was pending. It was further alleged that the petitioner ignored an application filed by partner of M/s.Jay Ambica Oil Carriers seeking to be joined as a party respondent in the suit and instead, the judicial officer compelled the defendant of the civil suit i.e., Essar Oil Limited, to hand over possession of the tankers to the plaintiffs.It was alleged that the petitioner has committed "corrupt practice and dereliction of his duty", which tantamounts to grave misconduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, violating the civil services rules. An inquiry was conducted and a chargesheet was filed listing four charges against the petitioner, out of which only first charge which is also interconnected with fourth charge–for passing an ex-parte mandatory interim injunction order dated 27.08.2007 in favour of the plaintiffs by adopting corrupt practice–was proved.The high court (on administrative side) disagreed with the inquiry's findings on charge 2 and 3 and issued a show cause notice to petitioner who submitted a reply. Thereafter May 2011 notification was issued dismissing the petitioner. FindingsThe court noted that the allegation against the petitioner was that he compelled the respondent company-defendant in lawsuit to hand over possession of the tankers to the...

No Disciplinary Action Against Judge Merely Because 'Wrong Order' Has Been Passed: Gujarat High Court Reinstates Judicial Officer

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags