SC Issues Notice To Uttarakhand HC Over ADJ's Plea Of Non-Admission Of Evidence In Disciplinary Proceeding, Also Stays Inquiry

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Uttarakhand High Court on the plea of an Additional District Judge in Uttarakhand for non-admission in evidence of a case diary in his disciplinary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer being a sitting judge of the High Court.The petitioner was aggrieved of the February 1 decision of the High Court wherein the High Court, on the one side, admitted the fact that the Petitioner filed the case dairy, the certified copy of which was received by him under RTI, and the same was denied to be admitted by the Presenting Officer, and on the other side, neither passed any direction to the Presenting Officer to admit it or verify the genuineness of the said the document.The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat also stayed the inquiry from being proceeded with.Senior Advocate Dev Dutt Kamat and Advocate Sachin Sharma argued for the petitioners.The facts in brief are since some of the documents, which were filed by the Petitioner in an ongoing departmental proceeding, for admission and denial, were not admitted by the Presenting Officer. Being aggrieved by the same, on 24.11.2020, the Petitioner filed the application before the Enquiry Officer that, inter alia, the Original Document i.e. copy made from the original case dairy provided and received under RTI may be treated as admissible in law and exhibit be marked on the said document."The aforesaid applications were erroneously rejected by the Enquiry Officer on the same day vide order dated 24.11.2020. That thereafter being aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Learned Enquiry officer wherein he rejected to take these documents as admissible in defence, the Petitioner filed Applications dated 09.01.2021 to call on witnesses who can prove the admissibility of those documents, however the same was also rejected on the same date vide order dated 09.01.2021", it is narrated.Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2020 and 09.01.2021, the Petitioner approached the High Court, wherein after hearing at length the High Court observed that one more opportunity be given to the Petitioner to prove the said documents. "That here it is pertinent to mention that despite heavily arguing on the admissibility of case dairy dated 06.04.2018 in Crime No. 58 of 2018 PS: SIDCUL, which is a certified copy received by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act., the Hon'ble High Court refrained from passing any order and thereby rejected the admissibility of said document. Hence being only aggrieved by the non-admissibility of the said document the Petitioner is filing the present Special Leave Petition", it is urged.It is mentioned that the case diary relates to a Criminal Case which has been closed as the prosecution has withdrawn the case and the accused i.e Ms. Dipali Sharma has been discharged vide judgment dated 05.09.2020. Hence, pursuant to the closure of case and discharge of accused, the case dairy in question is a public document and also as per Section 22 of the Right to Information Act., the provision of RTI Act has an overriding effect on all legislation including Official Secret Act. Hence the original information with true copy of the case dairy and prepared from original case dairy, has been submitted on 19.09.2020, therefore, the said copy can be considered as certified copy and is therefore admissible in law.It is pointed out that the case diary dated 06-04-2018 is important in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner because, Ms. Deepali Sharma, who was also posted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Haridwar District Court and was suspended on 30-01-2018 on the charges of torture, beating and keeping a minor girl as slave in her house, had on 06-04-2018 informed on official mobile number of the investigation officer in the criminal case against Ms. Deepali Sharma, that one complaint has been received against the petitioner herein and that enquiry is going on against the petitioner. The said investigating Officer even confronted the same with the Petitioner on 17-04-2018. The petitioner was totally unaware about the said allegations and clearly denied it. Subsequently, on 23-04-2018 the petitioner was placed suspension."That now the very important question how a suspended judicial officer is aware of any complaint and enquiry against her senior officer, when the complete matter was kept 'most confidential' and even the petitioner was also not aware of any such complaint and enquiry. That this points to the fact that the conspiracy was hatched against petitioner and Ms. Deepali Sharma was also involved in the group which hatched the conspiracy against petitioner. That initially it was not clear as to who all are involved in conspiracy and manipulation of false complaint, but with the passage of time, it got clear that under the guidance and directions of Hon'ble Inquiry Officer (i.e the sitting Judge of the Hon'ble High Court) , the then District Judge Haridwar Sri Rajendra Singh, Ms. Deepali...

SC Issues Notice To Uttarakhand HC Over ADJ's Plea Of Non-Admission Of Evidence In Disciplinary Proceeding, Also Stays Inquiry

Mehal Jain

Tags