1996 (8) TMI 566 - SC - Indian Laws

District Judge's Service Extension Denial Appeal Dismissed; Emphasis on Transparency and Accountability

The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge, was denied an extension of service beyond 58 years by the Full Court of the High Court of Patna. Despite ... - Issues:1. Extension of service beyond 58 years denied to the appellant by the Full Court of the High Court of Patna.2. Challenge to the decision through a writ petition and subsequent legal proceedings.3. Allegations of impropriety in the filing of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) without Chief Justice's permission.4. Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court due to subsequent events.5. Examination of allegations against the Registrar General and officers of the Registry.6. Refusal to disclose the source of a document by the appellant's counsel.Analysis:1. The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge, was denied an extension of service beyond 58 years by the Full Court of the High Court of Patna. This decision led to the appellant filing a writ petition challenging the denial of extension.2. The writ petition was initially disposed of with an observation for the appellant to make a representation before the Chief Justice for reconsideration. Subsequent legal proceedings included the filing of a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the decision of the learned single Judge, leading to a Division Bench setting aside the judgment and dismissing the writ petition.3. Allegations were made regarding the impropriety in filing the LPA without the Chief Justice's permission, leading to a challenge in the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Supreme Court issued notice to the Registrar General of the High Court to review the case.4. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the subsequent events had made the SLP infructuous as the final decision by the Division Bench was not challenged. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.5. The Supreme Court examined the allegations against the Registrar General and officers of the Registry, finding them unwarranted. It was established that the appeal process was conducted in a routine manner without any impropriety.6. The appellant's counsel's refusal to disclose the source of a document submitted in court was strongly criticized by the Supreme Court. The Court expressed displeasure at the lack of transparency and accountability in withholding such information.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in legal proceedings.