Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ., Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Prabhakar Gwal S/o Shri Mukti Gwal - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs and ors. - Respondents
WA No. 422 of 2020
Decided On : 07-08-2024
(A) Constitution of India – Article 311(2)(b) – Dismissal of judicial officer – Dismissal order passed by Additional Secretary, subordinate to appointing authority, held valid as it was based on Full Court's recommendation citing impracticability of inquiry – Judicial conduct and integrity paramount for maintaining public trust in judiciary. (Paras 39, 44, 86)
(B) Administrative Law – Delegation of powers – Authority to dismiss a judicial officer must rest with the appointing authority, but the High Court's recommendation suffices for dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) – No requirement for consultation with Public Service Commission in such cases. (Paras 56, 92)
(C) Natural Justice – Allegations of bias against learned Single Judge dismissed as unsubstantiated – Judicial officers must maintain high standards of conduct and integrity, and complaints against them must be substantiated. (Paras 100, 106)
Facts of the case: The appellant, a judicial officer, was dismissed from service based on a Full Court resolution citing misconduct and impracticability of inquiry after he filed a criminal complaint against senior judicial officers and others. (Paras 39, 86)
Findings of Court: The dismissal was upheld as justified due to the appellant's repeated misconduct and failure to maintain the integrity expected of a judicial officer. (Paras 86, 109)
Issues: Whether the dismissal was valid despite being signed by an Additional Secretary and whether the learned Single Judge was biased. (Paras 41, 56)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal was valid under Article 311(2)(b) due to the nature of the appellant's conduct and the Full Court's recommendation, emphasizing the need for integrity in the judiciary. (Paras 86, 109)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1.Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey and Mr. Mahesh Gahlot, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State / respondent No.1 and Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2/High Court of Chhattisgarh.
2.The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2795 of 2016 (Prabhakar Gwal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 01.04.2016 passed by respondent No.1, by which the writ petitioner / appellant has been dismissed from service.
3.Brief facts relevant for filing the present appeal, according to the appellant, are that the appellant/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant" wherever necessary) was initially appointed as Civil Judge, Class-II through order dated 27.12.2005 issued by the Principal Secretary, State of CG, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur. The appellant was thereafter promoted to the post of Civil Judge, Class-l in the year 2012 and then in the year 2015 to the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and posted at Raipur where he was also given charge of Special CBI Magistrate. On 17.03.2015 the wife of the appellant made a complaint to the Registrar General and Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh against the then District & Sessions Judge, Bilaspur that he is unnecessarily harassing her husband/appellant thereby compelling him to commit suicide. On 11.05.2015 the Registrar (Vigilance) issued a Memorandum to Smt. Pratibha Gwal (wife of petitioner) for submitting an affidavit in support of her complaint dated 17.03.2015 within seven days of its receipt.
4.On 17.07.2015 the present appellant passed a judgment in PMT Paper Leak Scam for registration of FIR against the then Superintendent of Police, Raipur, other police personnel and the persons involved in the crime. On 03.08.2015 one Ramdas Athwale, R/o Masanganj, Bilaspur (CG), made a complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, District & Sessions Judge as well as Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Raipur (appellant herein) for disclosure of the names of main culprits of CG PMT Paper Leak Scam and other recruitment. This complaint was dispatched by the complainant on 10.08.2015 and received by the appellant on 14.08.2015. On the same day, the appellant taking cognizance on the above complaint, forwarded the same to P.S. Ganj, Raipur for doing the needful and informing the Court accordingly. As per the said complaint, Chief Minister, other Ministers of the State and officers of the State are involved in the said scam.
5.On 07.08.2015 the appellant made a complaint to Police Station-Civil Line, Raipur of being victimized of criminal conspiracy being hatched by the higher police authorities and the influential political leaders against whom the appellant had passed a judgment on 17.07.2015 concerning the PMT Paper Leak Scam. Thereafter, on 21.08.2015 the appellant submitted an application to the Director, Public Prosecution through the then District & Sessions Judge, Raipur thereby seeking transfer of ADPO Shri Radheshyam Nagwanshi as he was not cooperating with the Court and was creating nuisance in collusion with the police authorities and the political leaders against whom he had passed judgment in PMT scam. When the said news was published in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on 25.08.2015, a Memorandum was issued by respondent No.2/High Court of CG on 27.08.2015 to all the District & Sessions Judges of the State, with a direction to circulate it amongst all the concerned, regarding strict compliance of Government Servants Conduct Rules or else face appropriate disciplinary acti
Judicial officers must maintain high standards of integrity; dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) upheld due to misconduct and impracticability of inquiry.
The findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
Judicial officers must maintain impeccable integrity; disciplinary actions must be based on established misconduct without procedural violations and adhere to high standards of justice.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
The court emphasized that a dismissal must be proportionate to the misconduct and that procedural violations in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate the outcome.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
