2022 Supreme(SC) 229

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan at Jaipur)
Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran, JJ.
ABHAY JAIN – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANR. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 2029 of 2022 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition [C] No.6107 of 2020]
Decided On : 15-03-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Discharge from Post of Judicial Officer – Non-communication of ACRs to appellant is arbitrary.
(2) Discharge from Post of Judicial Officer – When Government had, on enquiry, come to conclusion that appellant was unsuitable for the post he held on probation, this was clearly by way of punishment and appellant would be entitled to protection of Article 311(2) of Constitution.
(3) Discharge from Post of Judicial Officer – Mere suspicion cannot constitute “misconduct” – Any ‘probability’ of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 311(2) – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – Rules 45 and 46 – Discharge from Post of Judicial Officer – Allegation of granting unwarranted bail to accused – Appellant was discharged despite pendency of enquiry proceedings initiated against him – Material placed before Higher Judicial Committee which recommended discharge of appellant, clearly shows that no adverse remarks were made against appellant except in relation to grant of bail on 27.04.2015 – Said material consisted of Bi-Annual Reports/Special Reports and ACRs of appellant – Bi-annual/Special Reports for period of July 2013-January 2014, January 2014-July 2014 and July 2014-January 2015, which were placed before committee makes it clear that work and conduct of appellant was “good” and his integrity was never doubted – ACR of appellant for year 2013 contains comment “very good” and mentions that integrity of appellant was never in doubt – Similarly, ACR for year 2014(Part-I) records comment “very good” for appellant and also provides him with an integrity certificate – No adverse remark is made even by Administrative Judge – No remark was made against integrity of appellant – ACRs were not communicated to him within reasonable time – Non-communication of ACRs to appellant is arbitrary – Since Government had, on enquiry, come to conclusion that appellant was unsuitable for the post he held on probation, this was clearly by way of punishment and appellant would be entitled to protection of Article 311(2) of Constitution – Moreover, substance of termination order reveals that discharge was by way of punishment – As such, question that whether action of non-confirmation of appellant is in accordance with Rules 45 and 46 of RJS Rules, answered in negative. [Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 – Rule 16; Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct Rules), 1971 – Rules 3 and 4] (Paras 43, 44, 47 and 50)

(B) Service Law – Discharge from Post of Judicial Officer – Allegation of granting unwarranted bail to accused – Every judicial officer is likely to commit mistake of some kind or other in passing orders in initial stage of his service, which a mature judicial officer would not do – However, if orders are passed without there being any corrupt motive, same should be over-looked by High Court and proper guidance should be provided to him – In present case, there was no intimation to appellant about his performance being unsatisfactory and he was deprived of his opportunity to improve as a judicial officer – Two out of three complaints were closed prior to meeting of Higher Judicial Committee and could not have been basis of decision of Committee – No verifiable complaint was filed against appellant that could form basis of disciplinary proceeding against him – Appellant could not be said to be at fault in granting bail to accused since bail order was based on non-grant of prosecution sanction and no progress in relation to same being brought on record – Appellant, under Section 439, Cr.P.C., could have granted bail to accused even subsequent to rejection of bail by High Court – Charges filed against appellant are vague in nature and absolutely no details have been provided regarding allegation of passing bail order for extraneous considerations/ ulterior motive – Fact that two other co-accused had already been enlarged on bail was a valid reason for granting bail to accused – If High Court was to initiate disciplinary proceedings based on a judicial order, there should have been strong grounds to suspect appellant’s bona fides and order itself should have been actuated by malice, bias or illegality – Appellant was competent and well within his right to grant bail to accused in discharge of his judicial functions – Appellant may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he did not carefully go through case file and did not take notice of order of High Court which was on his file – This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct – Enquiry officer virtually sat as a court of appeal picking holes in order granting bail, even when he could not find any extraneous reason for grant of bail order – There was not a string of continuous illegal orders that have been alleged to be passed for extraneous considerations – Present case revolves only around a single bail order, and that too was passed with competent jurisdiction – Mere suspicion cannot constitute “misconduct” – Any ‘probability’ of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, and this requirement has not been fulfilled in present case – There was no allegation of illegal gratification against appellant – Such relief-oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on honesty and integrity of an officer – Termination of his service is by way of punishment because it puts a stigma on his competence and appellant would be entitled to protection of Article 311(2) of Constitution – Impugned order of High Court set aside and discharge order quashed – Keeping in view that appellant has not worked as judicial officer after he was discharged, while appellant to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority, but will be entitled to be paid only 50% back-wages. [Constitution of India – Article 311(2) – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – Rules 45 and 46] (Paras 54, 55, 57, 62, 64, 71 and 72)

Facts of the case:

Appellant, who joined as a judicial officer in 2013, having been discharged from service in the year 2016, filed a Writ Petition in the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2019 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed by way of this Special Leave Petition.

Findings of Court:

Submission of the respondent that the discharge of appellant was a discharge simpliciter and not violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is not worthy of acceptance. The High Court has erred in holding that discharge order of the appellant was a simpliciter order and not punitive in nature. In spite of observing that order of discharge had been passed on account of inquiry initiated against the appellant, High Court failed to provide any reasoning as to how the allegation of misconduct pertaining to the bail order was not the foundation of the order of discharge.

Result : Appeal allowed.