2016 Supreme(SC) 547

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
R.R. PAREKH – APPELLANT
Versus
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL Nos 6116-6117 OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.34674-34675 of 2012]
Decided On : 12-07-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
A wrong decision by a judicial officer can yet be a bona fide error of judgment.
Inadvertence is consistent with an honest error of judgment.
A charge of misconduct against a judicial officer must be distinguished from a purely erroneous decision whether on law or on fact.
A judicial officer cannot take the plea that he was not aware of the provisions under which he was awarding punishment.
If a charge of misconduct is proved, High Court will not for re-appreciate or re-evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 235 – High Court exercises control over the district judiciary – High Courts are required to frame procedural rules for conduct of disciplinary proceedings in respect of judicial officers – The inquiry report is considered by the Disciplinary Committee – Recommendation submitted by the Disciplinary Committee not binding on the High Court – Full Court is obliged to apply its mind to the report of Disciplinary Committee and to determine whether it should or should not be accepted. (Para 13)

       (b) Service law – Judicial service – Misconduct – A wrong decision can yet be a bona fide error of judgment – Inadvertence is consistent with an honest error of judgment – A charge of misconduct against a judicial officer must be distinguished from a purely erroneous decision whether on law or on fact. (Para 15)

       (c) Service law – Judicial service – Misconduct – Instantly charges against the Appellant involved rendering of decisions actuated by corrupt practice or by oblique motives – Trial under section 135, Customs Act, 1962 – Minimum punishment specified as three years in absence of special and adequate reasons – Appellant awarded sentences ranging from three months to five years of imprisonment to different accused without any special and adequate reasons – Plea of not being aware of the provisions – Not convincing and hence not acceptable for a judicial officers of 14 years. (Para 17, 18)

       (d) Service law – Disciplinary proceedings – Punishment – Standard of proof – Not governed by the strict rules of evidence – Misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities – High Court would not interfere unless the findings are found to be perverse – If a charge of misconduct is proved, High Court will not for re-appreciate or re-evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence – Impugned decision cannot be faulted. (Para 19)

       (e) Service law – Punishment – Proportionality – Rule 6, Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules 1971 – Having due regard to nature of the established misconduct and the totality of circumstances punishment of dismissal substituted by that of compulsory retirement. (Para 20)

       Facts of the case:

       The Appellant was recruited as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate in 1981 in the judicial service of the State of Gujarat. He was promoted as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 1996.

       Appellant was subjected to two disciplinary proceedings. In both proceedings initially he was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. Disciplinary Committees also agreed. However the Disciplinary Committees were reconstituted and gave fresh opinion finding him guilty.

       He was dismissed from service.

       The High Court held that the findings and conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee in Inquiry 6 of 2001 were not sustainable.

       The High Court, however, held that the charge of misconduct in Disciplinary Inquiry 15 of 2000 was based on evidence and it could not be held that the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee, which were adopted by the Full Court, were based on no evidence. The High Court held that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate to the charge of misconduct which has been found to be established.

       Finding of the Court:

       Having due regard to the nature of the misconduct which has been found to be established and the totality of circumstances we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal should stand substituted by an order of compulsory retirement.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.