Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 260
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL
A.M. Sankaran
Versus
The Registrar High Court
W.P. No. 11038 of 1996
Decided On :Decided on : 05-03-1999
For the Petitioner:N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Natarajan, Additional Government Pleader.
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a judicial officer for passing a judicial order in good faith and without any allegation of mala fides, abuse of power, or recklessness.
Headnote:
JUDICIAL ORDER - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - JUDICIAL OFFICER - POWER OF APPOINTMENT - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - JURISDICTION - JUDICIAL IMMUNITY - ABUSE OF POWER - RECKLESSNESS - MISCONDUCT - CONDUCT RULES - SECTION 451, CR.P.C. - INTERPRETATION - EVIDENCE - ERROR OF JUDGMENT - NEGLIGENCE - GOOD FAITH - BONA FIDES - PUBLIC INTEREST - HIGH COURT - APPOINTING AUTHORITY - GOVERNOR - TAMIL NADU STATE MAGISTERIAL SERVICE RULES, RULE 2(2) (A) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 234 AND 235.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Judicial I Class Magistrate, was compulsorily retired by the respondent for passing an order for the destruction of seized spirit without recording evidence, as required under Section 451, Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged the order, contending that disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against him for a judicial order passed in good faith and without any allegation of mala fides, abuse of power, or recklessness.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner for passing a judicial order in good faith and without any allegation of mala fides, abuse of power, or recklessness. The Court further held that the respondent had no jurisdiction to compulsorily retire the petitioner, as the High Court was the appointing authority and not the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against a judicial officer for passing a judicial order in good faith and without any allegation of mala fides, abuse of power, or recklessness? 2. Whether the respondent had the jurisdiction to compulsorily retire the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a judicial officer for passing a judicial order in good faith and without any allegation of mala fides, abuse of power, or recklessness. A judicial officer is immune from liability for acts done in the course of judicial proceedings, which acts were alleged to have been done maliciously and without jurisdiction and with knowledge of the absence of jurisdiction, unless it is proved that the officer acted in gross recklessness in the discharge of his duties, or he failed to act honestly or in good faith, or he omitted to observe the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of his statutory power. 2. The respondent did not have the jurisdiction to compulsorily retire the petitioner, as the High Court was the appointing authority and not the respondent.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner as First Class Judicial Magistrate with all attendant benefits.
S.S. SUBRAMANI, J.
Petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of respondent in his Roc. No. 15/84.Con.E1, dated 20-08-86, quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner as First Class Judicial Magistrate with all attendant benefits, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk in July 1952 in the High Court. He was subsequently appointed as Sub Magistrate (redesignated as Judicial II Class Magistrate) on 03-08-1966 and was later promoted as Judicial I Class Magistrate in the year 1976. He was also confirmed in the post of Judicial II Class Magistrate in 1971-72 and transferred to the Tamil Nadu Judicial Magisterial Service after his lien was severed from the High Court. The appointment of petitioner as Judicial II Class Magistrate was made by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in consonance with Art. 235 of the Constitution of India, and his appointing authority is only the Governor of Tamil Nadu under Art. 234 of the Constitution of India.
3. The petitioner was compulsorily retired as per the impugned Order dated 20-08-1986. The Order was passed under the following circumstances:—
While the petitioner was working as Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attur, on transfer from Devakottai, he received a show cause notice as per proceedings of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai dated 26.12.1984. The allegation in the show cause notice was that while he was working as Judicial First Class Magistrate. Devakottai he passed orders on 31.08. 1981 for destruction of spirit seized in Crime No. 146 of 1981 of Devakottai Town Police Station under Sections 5, 7 and 4 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act without ascertaining or examining or recording any evidence regarding the inflammable nature of the spirit and that the order for such destruction appears to be not proper. Petitioner submitted his explanation. But not being satisfied with the same, he was charge-sheeted by the District Judge. Ramanathapuram at Madurai on 8.01.1985. Two charges were framed against him. Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence and enquiry was also completed on 06-10-1985. Even though the enquiry was over in October 1985 itself, no final order was passed for more than four months, and when he made a request in writing to the Enquiring Officer, respondent sent a show cause notice dated 04-06-1986 along with a copy of enquiry report stating that the first charge against the petitioner was proved and second charge was not proved. Petitioner was asked to explain why he shall not be compulsorily retired. Though explanation was filed, the impugned Order was passed.
4. In the various grounds taken in the writ petition, it is said that the impugned Order is contrary to law, erroneous and arbitrary, and the respondent, has no jurisdiction to compulsorily retire the petitioner from the post of Judicial I Class Magistrate. It is further said that the petitioner was discharging his judicial functions, and the same cannot be challenged in disciplinary proceedings. It is also said that the power of appointment includes the power to impose major penalties, and in this case the respondent is not the appointing authority and consequently he cannot remove the petitioner from service. The Order in question being a judicial order, and so long as there is no case that the same was passed by petitioner recklessly or that he acted against the mandate of the Statute which did not authorise him to do, it cannot, be the subject matter of disciplinary proceeding, It is also said that Section 451 of the Crl. Procedure Code which deals with property has been misinterpreted by the Enquiry Officer and consequently the impugned Order was also passed. When the petitioner acted with bona fides and in good faith, and also on the basis of letter submitted by the Inspector o
