Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
D. Biswas and Amitava Roy, JJ.
Dilip Das – Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. – Respondent
W.A. No. 359 of 2002
Decided On: 06.05.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.K. Bhattacharjee, P. Pathak, P. Barman and B.K. Singh, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: B.C. Das, S. Dutta, R.C. Paul and S. Roy, Advs.
The penalty imposed on a judicial officer for misconduct must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a member of the Assam Judicial Service, was removed from service following a departmental proceeding. The charges against him were that he had granted bail in certain cases arbitrarily without applying judicial mind and that he had granted pre-arrest anticipatory bail in certain other cases injudiciously and without following judicial norms.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the charges against the Petitioner were proved only in respect of certain cases where he had granted bail in an injudicious and irresponsible manner. However, the Court found that the Petitioner had a long tenure of service and that the adverse consequences of removal from service would be disproportionate to the gravity of his misconduct. Accordingly, the Court imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
Issues: Whether the charges against the Petitioner were proved.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the charges against the Petitioner were proved only in respect of certain cases where he had granted bail in an injudicious and irresponsible manner. However, the Court found that the Petitioner had a long tenure of service and that the adverse consequences of removal from service would be disproportionate to the gravity of his misconduct. Accordingly, the Court imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order of removal from service and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The Appellant assails the order dated 25.2.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 565/2002 dismissing the writ petition in limine, rejecting thereby the challenge made to his removal from service. The Petitioner a member of the Assam Judicial Service was by order dated 21.6.2001 issued by the Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Judicial Department, removed from service following a departmental proceeding. The departmental appeal was also dismissed.
2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee and Mr. P. Pathak, Sr. Advocates, assisted by Mrs. P. Barman, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. B.C. Das, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Dutta and Smt. S. Roy, Advocates for the High Court.
3. The factual background in brief is necessary to better comprehend the competing arguments. The Petitioner was recruited to the Grade III of the Assam Judicial Service in the year 1980 and was appointed as Judicial Magistrate cum Munsiff in the same year. He was thereafter promoted to Grade II of the Service by order/notification dated 7.4.92 and was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. During his tenure as such, the High Court by order dated 19.12.95 allowed him to hold the charge of the office of the Sessions Judge and accordingly he continued to function both as the Sessions Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, from 5.1.96 to 20.3.96. He was thereafter transferred and posted as Civil Judge, Senior Division, Cachar, Silchar, by order dated 6.3.97.
4. While the Petitioner was serving at North Lakhimpur in the above capacity, by letter dated 10.9.96 issued by the Registrar (I and E) of this Court, he was asked to submit an explanation on the circumstances leading to passing of bail orders in the cases mentioned therein in the capacity of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, and in-charge Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur and the Petitioner accordingly submitted the same following inspection of the connected records as permitted by the Registry.
5. A memorandum of charges dated 29.9.97 was thereafter served on the Petitioner asking him to show cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, (hereafter referred to as Rules) read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules should not be inflicted on him on the charges based on the statement of allegations set out therein. The charges were under two broad heads as extracted herein below.
(1) That while you had been functioning as Chief judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, you granted bail in the following cases arbitrarily without applying judicial mind.
(2) That while you had been functioning as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, and were in-charge of the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, during that period you granted pre-arrest anticipatory bail in the following cases injudiciously and without following judicial norms.
Under both the heads, the particulars of the cases and the gist of imputations were furnished.
6. The Petitioner in view of the indictments was charged to be guilty of misconduct for having failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in violation of Rule 3 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965, (hereafter referred to as Conduct Rules). The memorandum of charges was accompanied by the statement of allegations on which charges were based and also a list of documents on which the disciplinary authority sought to rely to substantiate the charges. Subsequent thereto, by a communication dated 22.11.97, the Petitioner was placed under suspension. The Petitioner on 22.1.98 replied contending, inter alia, that the charges related to orders of bail passed in course of his duties as a Judicial Officer and were thus beyond the purview of consideration in a disciplinary proceeding, more so, when the bail orders had attained finality not having been questioned before this Court. He contended that the complaint submi
