Superior Authorities Should Ordinarily Refrain From Passing Derogatory Remarks Against Judicial Officers: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has recently called upon superior judicial authorities to desist from passing strictures, derogatory remarks or scathing criticism against judicial officers without affording an opportunity of hearing to them.The Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, while quashing an adverse entry from the Confidential Character Roll (CCR) of a former Registrar General of the High Court, made the following observations –“The Superior Authority should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures, derogatory remarks and scathing criticism. Passing of such remarks/comments without affording a hearing to the subordinate officer is clearly violative of the principle of natural justice and thus, we are of the view that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.”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) requested 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.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. On October 15, 2022, he received a confidential letter from the High Court whereby he was intimated about some adverse remarks recorded in his CCR. In the CCR, though the Chief Justice gave 'good' remarks in almost every respect, but his integrity was remarked to be 'doubtful' and his overall grading was given 'average'. Subsequently, he filed a representation seeking to expunge the adverse remarks against him and also to upgrade the CCR grading to any higher grade. However, the representation was rejected by the Court without assigning any reason, and the said fact was communicated to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, he challenged such adverse entries by filing this writ petition.Role of Administrative Judge/Judge-in-charge in assessing integrityThe petitioner specifically contended that the Chief Justice did not adhere to the procedure prescribed under the General Rules and Circular Orders (GRCO) (Civil), Vol-II which deals with recording of CCR of Judicial Officers. The Court, therefore, perused the relevant note/instruction provided under the GRCO which is required to be followed by the Administrative Judge/Judge-in-charge whiling filling the 'integrity' column of a Judicial Officer.As per the guidelines, the Court held, the maintenance of 'secret records' by the Judge-in-charge of the district making a note as to the fact and circumstance which comes to his knowledge touching the integrity of the concerned Judicial Officer is necessary. The said secret record shall indicate whether the information reveals a definite fact susceptible of formal proof, or a mere vague allegation not susceptible of formal proof.“Where any adverse report regarding the reputation of a Judicial Officer touching his integrity or honesty is received, the Judge-in-charge should keep a general watch over the standard of living of the concerned Judicial Officer. In case there is evidence that the concerned Judicial Officer lives beyond his means for which there is no apparent satisfactory explanation and evidence is forthcoming, he should be asked...

Superior Authorities Should Ordinarily Refrain From Passing Derogatory Remarks Against Judicial Officers: Orissa High Court

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags