Disciplinary action for wrong judicial orders fails without proof of extraneous motive or corrupt intent.

A judicial officer cannot be subjected to disciplinary punishment merely because judicial orders are later found to be wrong or based on an imperfect appreciation of facts. Pension withdrawal under the Bihar Pension Rules was unsustainable because the record disclosed no collateral material showing extraneous considerations, corrupt motive, or other conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. Article 235 confers supervisory control over the subordinate judiciary, but that control must be exercised cautiously and cannot be used to punish a judge solely for erroneous orders. The punitive order withdrawing the entire pension was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary action withdrawing the petitioner's entire pension on the basis of two judicial orders was sustainable in the absence of material showing extraneous considerations or corrupt motive.

Analysis: The petitioner, a retired judicial officer, was proceeded against under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 for judicial orders passed in two criminal matters. The material on record showed, at the highest, that the orders may have been erroneous or based on an imperfect appreciation of the facts. The mere fact that a judicial order is found to be incorrect does not, by itself, justify disciplinary punishment unless there is evidence that the order was passed for extraneous reasons and not on the basis of the record. In the present case, no collateral material established extraneous consideration, corrupt motive, or any act unbecoming of a judicial officer. Article 235 of the Constitution of India confers control over the subordinate judiciary on the High Court, but that control must be exercised with caution and cannot be used to punish a judicial officer merely for passing wrong orders.

Conclusion: The punitive order withdrawing the petitioner's pension was unsustainable and was set aside; the disciplinary action failed for want of evidence of extraneous consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial officer cannot be subjected to disciplinary punishment merely because judicial orders are found to be wrong; such action is justified only where the record shows that the orders were passed for extraneous reasons or with corrupt motive.

---