2009 Supreme(Guj) 600

2010 (1) GCD 13 (Guj) (DB)
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave
S.J. Pathak Ex. Addl. Sessions Judge
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr.
Special Civil Application No. 9993 of 20061—Decided on 06/11/2009

Point in Issue :
Whether it is established that delinquent Judicial Officer passed various bail orders with obliques motive?

Headnote:Head Note :

       (a) Service and Employment — Departmental Enquiry — Judicial Officer — Charge that various bail orders passed with oblique motive — Can not be accepted as proved in absence of clear cut evidence of oblique motive and after receiving illegal gratification — Since it shall affect judicial freedom and independence.

       Held :

       Enquiry Officer has clearly found that Department had failed to prove that the delinquent officer had passed various bail orders with oblique motive and after receiving illegal gratification. The Enquiry Officer has also clearly found that the Department had failed to prove the charge of grave misconduct and the delinquent officer had acted unbecoming of a judicial officer. These findings have been accepted by the Disciplinary Committee headed by Justice N.G. Nandi with regard to both the enquiry proceedings. The Apex Court in Kashi Nath Roy vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (4) SCC 539 held that human element in justicing being an important element, computer-like functioning cannot be expected of the Courts; however, hard they may try and keep themselves precedent-trodden in the scope of discretions and in the manner of judging. Whenever any such intolerable error is detected by or pointed out to a superior court, it is functionally required to correct that error and may, here and there, in an appropriate case, and in a manner befitting, maintaining the dignity of the Court and independence of judiciary, convey its message in its judgment to the officer concerned through a process of reasoning, essentially persuasive, reasonable, mellow but clear, and result-orienting, but rarely as a rebuke. The premises that a Judge committed a mistake or an error beyond the limits of tolerance, is no ground to inflict condemnation on the Judge Subordinate, unless there existed something else and for exceptional grounds. Principle laid down by the Apex Court, in Court view, clearly applies to the facts of this case. Judicial pronouncement in the absence of clear cut evidence of favouratism, lack of integrity, corrupt practices, extraneous consideration etc. cannot be the foundation of disciplinary proceedings or else it will affect the judicial freedom and independence. Judicial officers have to be saved to uphold the rule of law and the independence of judiciary. If the High Court entertains anonymous complaints which are frivolous or motivated and originated from unscrupulous lawyers and litigants, no judicial officers would be secure and would not be able to discharge their duties without fear or favour. Judicial officers especially dealing with bail matters, cannot dance to the tune or dictates of lawyers but has to act in accordance with the settled principles of law. [Para 13]

       (b) Service and Employment — Departmental Enquiry — Judicial Officer — Charge of — Corrupt practice or for illegal gratification — In absence of any specific evidence and merely on basis of suspicion — Charge can be held proved.

       Held :

       None of the bail orders with which Court is concerned, granted by the delinquent officer, was questioned before the Appellate Court and no complaints had been filed by the complainant or the State against the delinquent officer either before the High Court on administrative side or before any other forum. Further witnesses 3 and 4 examined on the side of the prosecution had stated that they have no grievance against the delinquent officer during his tenure at Junagadh. None of the above witnesses had made any specific allegation against the delinquent officer, but only suspected his integrity. Suspicion, in Court view cannot take place of proof and merely on conjectures and surmises and in the absence of any material evidence, Court cannot point Court finger against the delinquent officer. Court cannot merely infer oblique motive or corrupt practices against a judicial officer in the absence of any evidence worth mentioning. [Para 26]

       (c) Service and Employment — Departmental Enquiry — Ist Disciplinary Committee held charges proved — Court can not entrust the inquiry after contrary report of second Disciplinary Committee again to the earlier 1st Disciplinary committe to proceed further with enquiry — Such an action is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

       Held :

       Court is also of the view that Full Court of the High Court has committed a serious error in entrusting the Departmental Enquiry again to the Disciplinary Committee headed by Justice B.J. Shethna, vide chamber decision dated 6.5.2003, when that Committee had earlier recorded a clear finding, though tentative, that all charges levelled against the delinquent officer were established and recommended for his dismissal from service under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971. Disciplinary Committee headed by Justice B.J. Shethna had already pre-judged the issue and hence, Court fail to see how High Court could again entrust the enquiry to the same Disciplinary Committee, especially in the wake of a contrary report submitted by the Disciplinary Committee headed by Justice N.G. Nandi. The procedure followed by the High Court, in Court view, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 28]

       (d) Service and Employment — Departmental Enquiry — Disciplinary Committee — Disagreeing with the view of the Committee — Reasons must be given — In absence of reasons decision shall be vitiated by non-application of mind.

       Held :

       High Court has not stated any reason for disagreeing with the views expressed by Disciplinary Committee headed by Justice N.G. Nandi while taking a decision on 6.5.2003. High Court has only stated that the House is not accepting the report exonerating delinquent officer. Reason why it is not accepting the report is not discernible from the proceedings of the High Court on 6.5.2003. Practice followed by various High Courts in the country is that from time to time a Disciplinary Committee is appointed by the Chief Justice, which normally consists of senior Judges and the decisions and recommendations are generally accepted by the High Court, unless there are some cogent reasons for disagreement with the recommendations. No reasons were stated by the High Court in disagreeing with the report submitted by the Committee headed by Justice N.G. Nandi. Non-application of mind by the Chamber is writ large on the decision taken on 6.5.2003. [Para 31]

       Law Laid Down :

       The premises that a Judge committed a mistake or an error is no ground to inflict condemnation on the Judge unless there exists exceptional grounds.