Orissa HC Sets Aside Disciplinary Action Against Ex-Registrar General Who Registered Suo Moto Case Without Chief Justice's Approval

In a major relief to a former Registrar General, the Orissa High Court on Friday exonerated him from all disciplinary actions taken against him by the administrative side of the Court for allegedly registering a suo moto writ petition, purportedly being directed by a Division Bench of the Court, without the approval of the then Chief Justice.While setting aside all the charges levelled against the fourth senior-most judicial officer of the State, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –“We are of the humble view that even if the action taken by the petitioner in approving the note sheet can be stated to be an error but to err is human. Making mistakes is a natural and expected part of being human and cannot be termed as gross misconduct, when there is no violation of definite Rule/Law/Procedure and there was nothing to gain by the petitioner by putting his career at risk at the displeasure of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.”Case BackgroundMalaya Ranjan Dash (the petitioner), a judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge (Super-time Scale), was posted as the Registrar General of the High Court on June 05, 2020. While working as such, on February 26, 2021, he received an order passed by one Division Bench dated February 24, 2021, along with an official note-sheet from the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) ['the DR (J)'].Through the note-sheet, the DR (J) urged the petitioner to approve the same in order to give effect to the direction passed by the Division Bench, which had asked the Registry to supply the copy of its order along with brief to certain Senior Advocates, appointed as Amicus Curiae in that case, by February 26, 2021. Such direction could not have been complied with in the letter and spirit without registering a suo moto writ petition.In order to comply with the direction, the petitioner being the Registrar General promptly endorsed the note-sheet and registered a suo moto case. However, the then Chief Justice allegedly expressed displeasure over the manner in which the petitioner proceeded on to register the suo moto case without obtaining his approval or at least, bringing the matter to his notice.Subsequently, he was removed from the Registry and posted as the District Judge of a southern district of Odisha. He was served with a show cause notice as to why and under which circumstances, he registered the suo moto writ petition. Interestingly, along with the show-cause notice, the delinquent officer was also provided with a copy of the order of the said Division Bench. The petitioner contended that it is for the first time he came to know that the junior Judge sitting on the Bench had given a dissenting order while disagreeing with the conclusions reached at by the senior Judge on the Bench, which was later directed to be placed before a third Judge.A departmental proceeding (DP) was initiated against him on the grounds of gross misconduct, dereliction in duty and administrative indiscipline while dealing with judicial records, and failure maintain absolute honesty and integrity. Subsequently, an Inquiry Committee was constituted to conduct inquiry on the charges levelled against him.The Inquiry Committee found him guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and administrative indiscipline while dealing with judicial records, but he was exonerated from the charge of failure to maintain absolute integrity and honesty. He was penalised with the punishment of reduction to the lower grade in the pay, i.e. 'Selection Grade'. It was also directed that the pay of the petitioner would be fixed at the initial scale of the Selection Grade, and his upgradation to the next higher grade of Super-time Scale would be considered only after five years. Being aggrieved by the imposition of the aforesaid major penalty, the petitioner impugned the findings of the Inquiry Authority before the High Court.Contentions of PartiesSenior Advocate Budhadev Routray appearing for the petitioner argued that the order dated February 24, 2021 was passed in the open Court by a Division Bench and it was not varied till the date of registration of the suo motu writ petition. Therefore, such an order becomes operative even without the signatures of the Judges. He further contended that admittedly the copy of the order was sent after dictation in open Court, unaccompanied with the dissenting order which was penned subsequently. The note-sheet was approved for registration of suo moto writ petition during the last hour of the day of its stipulated date of compliance on good faith and there is no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner or violation of any definite rule or law. He also argued that the order of the Division Bench was valid in the eyes of law being dictated in open Court and communicated through proper channel. There was no scope for the petitioner to be sceptical regarding the veracity of the order, and if at all it was an error, it cannot be termed as 'grave...

Orissa HC Sets Aside Disciplinary Action Against Ex-Registrar General Who Registered Suo Moto Case Without Chief Justice's Approval

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags