Summary
A Civil Judge (Junior Division) was dismissed from service on the Full Court's resolution after four departmental enquiries found several charges proved, including pronouncing the operative portion of judgments in open court without the full text being ready and irregularities in auctioning seized property. A Single Judge dismissed his writ petitions, but a Division Bench set aside the penalty and the enquiry reports, barred any further enquiry, found the second show cause notices contrary to law and declared him innocent and honest. The Supreme Court restored the dismissal, holding that the Division Bench ignored the settled parameters for reviewing a penalty on a judicial officer, wrongly reversed the burden of proof by blaming the administration for not examining the stenographer, misapplied the law on second show cause notices, and had no power to bar a future enquiry.
Issues
- What are the parameters within which a court may interfere with a penalty imposed on a judicial officer following disciplinary proceedings and a Full Court resolution.
- Whether a second show cause notice indicating the proposed penalty, issued after furnishing the enquiry reports, violates natural justice.
- Whether a court setting aside a penalty can direct that no further enquiry be held against the delinquent.
Provisions considered
- Article 311 (as amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976), Constitution of IndiaThe requirement of a second show cause notice on the proposed penalty was removed in 1976 and upheld in Tulsiram Patel; the subsequent line from E. Bashyan through Mohd. Ramzan Khan to B. Karunakar only requires an opportunity to respond to the enquiry findings, which was given here before the Full Court decided. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
Held
- Charges relating to the manner of disposal of cases or judicial decision-making cannot by themselves found departmental proceedings and are ignored; but charges of pronouncing the operative portion of a judgment in open court without the whole text being prepared or dictated, and of irregular auction of seized property, are very serious. A judicial officer cannot present a fait accompli and shift the blame to a novice stenographer; such gross negligence and callousness is unbecoming of a judicial officer and the ill-will of complainants does not make it condonable. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- If the officer's defence was that the stenographer was to blame, it was for him to summon the stenographer as a witness; the High Court reversed the burden of proof by faulting the administration for not examining the stenographer. (¶ 16)
- In a challenge to a penalty imposed on a judicial officer after a Full Court resolution, the court must go only by established parameters: whether the charges stood proved, whether the enquiry findings are reasonable and not perverse, whether procedure and natural justice were followed, and whether the penalty is wholly disproportionate having regard to the gravity of misconduct, past record and extenuating circumstances. The High Court did not apply them and instead substituted its own view that the acts were not grave misconduct and that dismissal was atrocious, which amounts to a veiled attack on the Full Court. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Mahesh Dahiya is distinguishable as there the disciplinary authority had decided on a major penalty before forwarding the enquiry report; here the enquiry reports were furnished with the show cause notices, the officer replied, and only then did the Administrative Committee and the Full Court consider the matter, so the second show cause notices did not violate natural justice. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22)
- A court setting aside an order of penalty cannot direct that there shall be no further enquiry against the delinquent; the High Court's direction to that effect created a new jurisprudence and is unsustainable. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeals allowed; Division Bench order dated 02.08.2019 in the writ appeals set aside; the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the judicial officer upheld and his writ petitions dismissed; no costs.