2020 Supreme(SC) 253

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., B.R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Sadhna Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2077 of 2020 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition(C) No. 8550 of 2019]
Decided On : 06-03-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It is duty of High Courts to extend their protective umbrella and ensure that upright and straightforward judicial officers are not subjected to unmerited onslaught.
(2) Dismissal of writ petition merely signifies failure to demonstrate any of high standards in a particular case and not endorsement of orders passed by a subordinate authority.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Dismissal from Higher Judicial Service – Suspected integrity – End result of judicial process does not matter and what matters is only decision making process employed by delinquent officer – Judicial officers do discharge a very sensitive and important constitutional Role – They not only keep in check excesses of executive, safeguard citizens’ rights and maintain law and order – Instead, they support very framework of civilised society – It is courts which uphold law and ensure its enforcement – They instill trust of constitutional order in people and ensure majesty of law and adherence to its principles – It is necessary that any corruption or deviation from judicial propriety by guardians of law themselves, be dealt with sternly and swiftly – Judicial officers must aspire and adhere to a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity – However, mere suspicion cannot constitute misconduct – Any probability of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, even though standard of proof would obviously not be at par with that in a criminal trial – While applying these yardsticks, High Court is expected to consider existence of differing standards and approaches amongst different judges – There are innumerable instances of judicial officers who are liberal in granting bail, awarding compensation under MACT or for acquired land, back wages to workmen or mandatory compensation in other cases of tortious liabilities – Such relief oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on honesty and integrity of an officer – It is duty of High Courts to extend their protective umbrella and ensure that upright and straightforward judicial officers are not subjected to unmerited onslaught – There is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on part of appellant – Judgment of High Court set aside and writ petition filed by appellant allowed – Order of dismissal set aside and appellant’s prayers for reinstatement with consequential benefits including retiral benefits, accepted. [Rule 3 of UP Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956] (Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28 and 29)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Scope and ambit – Dismissal of writ petitions against appellant’s orders did not serve as vindication or confirmation of her orders – Scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited – Standards to be met prior to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction are very high, and there needs to be gross substantive injustice through the conclusion, glaring irregularities in procedure or need to resolve important questions of law for a writ court to overturn Reference Court’s order – Dismissal of writ petition merely signifies failure to demonstrate any of these high standards in a particular case and not endorsement of orders passed by a subordinate authority. (Para 24)

Facts of the Case:

Present appeal has been preferred by appellant, being aggrieved, against an order dated 12.12.2018 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which her writ petition, seeking judicial review of her dismissal from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services by Respondent No. 1, had been rejected.

Findings of the Court:

There is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on the part of appellant. Instead, the very basis of the finding of ‘misbehaviour’ is the end result itself, which as per the High Court was so shocking that it gave rise to a natural suspicion as to the integrity and honesty of the appellant. Although this might be right in a vacuum, however, given how the end result itself has been untouched by superior courts and instead in one of the two cases, the compensation only increased, no such inference can be made. Thus, the entire case against the appellant collapses like a house of cards.

Result : Appeal allowed.