Summary
An Additional Sessions Judge with 27 years' service was removed for granting bail in four Excise Act cases without referring to the twin conditions in Section 59-A, while citing that section in fourteen orders refusing bail. The Court held that misconduct cannot be inferred merely from judicial orders that are allegedly wrong or omit a statutory reference, absent material showing extraneous considerations. Finding the inquiry findings perverse and unsupported by evidence, it set aside the removal with full back wages.
Issues
- Whether a judicial officer could be removed from service for misconduct solely on the basis of four bail orders that did not expressly refer to Section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, contrasted with other orders refusing bail.
- Whether the courts could interfere with the findings of the departmental inquiry.
Provisions considered
- Section 59-A(2), Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915The charge was that bail was granted in disregard of the section's twin conditions; the Court held that the four orders gave reasons (filing of challan, likely delay of trial, no flight risk) and that their silence on the section, compared with its mention in fourteen rejection orders, did not by itself show misconduct. (¶¶ 2, 8, 13, 40)
Held
- A judicial officer should not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings merely because an order is wrong or reflects an error of judgment; wrong exercise of jurisdiction or a mistake of law is to be corrected in appeal or revision, and disciplinary action requires material showing extraneous influence, corrupt motive, recklessness or a decision that was not an honest exercise of judicial power. (¶¶ 29, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39)
- An inference that a judicial decision was actuated by extraneous considerations cannot be drawn merely from the hypothesis that it is erroneous; it is the officer's conduct, not the correctness of the verdict, that is in question. Omission of prescribed conditions may in some cases ground an inquiry, but this is not an absolute rule and depends on the facts. (¶¶ 32, 33, 35)
- Here, the complaint was general and aimed mainly at the stenographer, the complainant was not examined, the department's witness did not support the charge, the prosecutor in all the bail matters said the bail orders were proper and the State had not challenged them, and there was no material from which extraneous considerations could be inferred. Treating orders that do not expressly cite a statutory provision as dishonest would be a dangerous proposition. (¶ 40)
- Courts do not sit in appeal over departmental inquiry findings, but may interfere where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or such as no reasonable person would reach; the inquiry findings here met that description and the High Court erred in declining to interfere. (¶¶ 41, 42)
- Strict action, including contempt proceedings and reference to the Bar Council, should be taken against persons who file or engineer false and frivolous complaints against judicial officers; equally, prima facie true complaints should be acted on promptly without leniency, with care taken that a mere wrong order does not trigger disciplinary or criminal proceedings. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Appeal allowed; the removal order, the appellate authority's order of 17.03.2016 and the High Court's order set aside; appellant deemed to have continued in service until superannuation, with full back wages and consequential benefits to be released within eight weeks with interest at 6%; no costs; copy of the judgment to be sent to all High Courts' Registrars General.