TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been taken. According to the High Court, in the fourteen other orders the appellant referred to the said Section implying thereby that he was conscious of the existence of the said Section on the statute. Section 59-A prescribes what has now famously come to be known as "twin conditions" for grant of bail. 3. The question before us is whether on facts, based on the four judicial orders of grant of bail per se and without anything more, the authorities were justified in removing the appellant from service? 4. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant joined service on 31.10.1987 as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service. The appellant scaled the ladder up and in 2003 was promoted as Additional District Judge and in September, 2008 was confirmed in the said post. On 16.05.2011, he was transferred to Khargone, District Mandaleshwar (MP), where he joined as First Additional District & Sessions Judge. In the course of discharge of his duties, he dealt with several matters, including bail applications under the Excise Act. 5. One Jaipal Mehta, a resident of Jaitapur, Khargone, lodged a complaint with the Chief Justice of the Madhya Prade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore Zone, Indore, against the appellant and on 06.10.2012, the Principal Registrar (I & V) put up a note based on which it was decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the appellant. 8. What emerges is that in the preliminary inquiry certain orders passed by the appellant in bail proceedings seem to have been examined and few orders pulled out. Two charges were framed against the appellant of which the second charge admittedly was held not proved by the inquiry officer. The charges read as under :- "Whereas, you Shri Nirbhay Singh Suliya while functioning as Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, distt. Mandleshwar, have committed following acts which if proved would amount to grave misconduct :- ARTICLE OF CHARGE - I That, you, with corrupt of oblique motive or for some extraneous considerations, while functioning as Additional & Sessions Judge, allowed Bail Application No. 129/11 Lokesh Vs. State of MP vide order dated 1.8.11, Bail Application No. 136/11 Babulal & Ors. Vs. State vide order dated 4.8.11, Bail Application No.200/11 Mohan Vs. State of MP vide order dated 7.12.11, Bail Application No. 123/12 Jitendra & Nantiya Vs. State & No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a case where the appellant had rejected bail. Somehow that order also made its way into "Charge-I", as an order of grant of bail. Be that as it may. In the list of witnesses, Jaipal Mehta was named apart from a general statement - "any other witnesses that may be felt necessary". 11. The appellant gave his reply and dealt with each bail order that was subject matter of the charge. 12. We have perused the actual bail orders. In the bail order in Bail Application No.129/2011 (60 liters of liquor) the reasoning given was as under :- "After hearing arguments of both the parties, Criminal Case No.1685/11 Filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate was perused. On perusal, it is clear that on 25.07.2011, challan has been filed against both the Applicants/Accused in violation of Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, and possibility of consuming time in it's trial cannot be overruled. In view of the nature of crime, allegations, and without commenting on the merits of evidences collected in the present case i.e. Crime No. 232/11, and by placing reliance on the said case laws, where trial is likely to take time, and Applicant/Accused are theirselves [sic] being permanent resident....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are completely based on merits and are relevant and true as per law. Those 15 Bail Applications which have been rejected by the Ld. Trial Court, out of those cases, in the orders marked as Exh. P-9, Exh. P-12, Exh. P-13, Exh. P-17 and Exh. P-18, the case was at the initial stage of investigation." .......... "Note: Question by Enquiry Officer :- Question: The bail orders, in which bail applications have been allowed, whether those orders according to your goodself or in the opinion of Public Prosecutor, are proper or improper? What you say in this regard. Answer: In my opinion i.e. in the capacity of Public Prosecutor, the orders of granting bail were absolutely proper and on proper grounds." 16. Notwithstanding the above evidence the inquiry officer held "Charge-I", proved by recording the following findings :- "Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid analysis, as a final conclusion, it is proved in favour of the Department that Delinquent Officer Sh. N.S. Suliya in the capacity of Additional Sessions Judge, not being impartial in the disposal of Bail Applications for the offences of Section 34(2), 49-A of the Excise Act, and with obl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he procedure followed in the enquiry in the present case. In the absence of any procedural illegality, irregularity in the conduct of departmental enquiry, in the considered opinion of this Court, no interference is warranted and after considering the over all material available in the record and in view of the settled position of law, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of punishment/removal dated 02.09.2014 and the order of rejection of appeal on 17.03.2016 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed." 21. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 22. We have heard Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kanu Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arjun Garg, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, who ably presented the case of the said respondent. We have perused the records, including the written submissions and the compilation of case law filed by the parties. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT: - 23. Learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the allegations were directly against Anil Joshi - the Stenographer; that neither the complainant - Jaipal Mehta nor the Stenogra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be subjected to penalty in the discharge of his duties, it is apposite to make certain preliminary observations. 27. A fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary, as much as an independent judiciary itself is the foundation on which rule of law rests. A judicial Officer is tasked with the onerous duty of deciding cases. Invariably one party to the case would lose and go back unhappy. Disgruntled elements amongst them, wanting to settle scores may raise frivolous allegations. The Trial Judiciary also has tremendous work pressure and works under trying working conditions. Large number of cases are listed in a day and most of the Judicial Officers give their very best while discharging their duties. 28. Instances have also emerged from different parts of the country, where not just disgruntled parties but some mischievous elements in the Bar have also resorted to intimidatory tactics against the members of the Trial Judiciary by engineering false and anonymous complaints. Strict and strong action in accordance with law should be taken against such individuals filing a false and frivolous complaint against a judicial officer and/or if found to be engineering the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary popularity. Sometimes, a few disgruntled members of the Bar also join hands with them, and the officers of the subordinate judiciary are usually the easiest target. It is, therefore, the duty of the High Courts to extend their protective umbrella and ensure that the upright and straightforward judicial officers are not subjected to unmerited onslaught. 26. We can find no fault in the proposition that the end result of adjudication does not matter, and only whether the delinquent officer had taken illegal gratification (monetary or otherwise) or had been swayed by extraneous considerations while conducting the process is of relevance. Indeed, many-a-times it is possible that a judicial officer can indulge in conduct unbecoming of his office whilst at the same time giving an order, the result of which is legally sound. Such unbecoming conduct can either be in the form of a Judge taking a case out of turn, delaying hearings through adjournments, seeking bribes to give parties their legal dues, etc. None of these necessarily need to affect the outcome. However, importantly in the present case, a perusal of the charge-sheet shows that no such allegation of the process havin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arge of misconduct against a judicial officer must be distinguished from a purely erroneous decision whether on law or on fact. The legality of a judicial determination is subject to such remedies as are provided in law for testing the correctness of the determination. It is not the correctness of the verdict but the conduct of the officer which is in question. The disciplinary authority has to determine whether there has emerged from the record one or more circumstances that indicate that the decision which forms the basis of the charge of misconduct was not an honest exercise of judicial power. The circumstances let into evidence to establish misconduct have to be sifted and evaluated with caution. The threat of disciplinary proceedings must not demotivate the honest and independent officer. Yet on the other hand, there is a vital element of accountability to society involved in dealing with cases of misconduct. There is on the one hand a genuine public interest in protecting fearless and honest officers of the District Judiciary from motivated criticism and attack. Equally there is a genuine public interest in holding a person who is guilty of wrongdoing, responsible for his or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y powers; (v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; (vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great". 29. The instances above catalogued are not exhaustive. However, we may add that for a mere technical violation or merely because the order is wrong and the action not falling under the above enumerated instances, disciplinary action is not warranted. Here, we may utter a word of caution. Each case will depend upon the facts and no absolute rule can be postulated." 35. This Court held that merely because the order is wrong, disciplinary action is not warranted and that each case will depend upon the facts and no absolute rule can be postulated. What is significant to notice is that even though in the illustrated case [para 28 (iv)] K.K. Dhawan (supra), cases of omission of prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of statutory powers may in a given case furnish a ground for disciplinary enquiry, it is not an absolute rule and each case will depend upon the facts. As observed in R.R. Parekh (supra), the Disciplinary A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt held as under :- "12. This Court on several occasions has disapproved the practice of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against officers of the subordinate judiciary merely because the judgments/orders passed by them are wrong. The appellate and revisional courts have been established and given powers to set aside such orders. The higher courts after hearing the appeal may modify or set aside erroneous judgments of the lower courts. While taking disciplinary action based on judicial orders, the High Court must take extra care and caution. 17. In Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India [(1999) 7 SCC 409 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1299 : AIR 1999 SC 2881] this Court held that wrong exercise of jurisdiction by a quasi- judicial authority or mistake of law or wrong interpretation of law cannot be the basis for initiating disciplinary proceeding. Of course, if the judicial officer conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or there is a prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in discharge of his duties or he had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or had passed an order actuated by corrupt motive, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, though elaborate enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry officer, there is hardly any material worth the name forthcoming except to scrutinize each one of the orders made by the appellant on the judicial side to arrive at a different conclusion. That there was possibility on a given set of facts to arrive at a different conclusion is no ground to indict a judicial officer for taking one view and that too for alleged misconduct for that reason alone. The enquiry officer has not found any other material, which would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or devotion to duty or that he has been actuated by any corrupt motive. At best, he may say that the view taken by the appellant is not proper or correct and not attribute any motive to him which is for extraneous consideration that he had acted in that manner. If in every case where an order of a subordinate court is found to be faulty a disciplinary action were to be initiated, the confidence of the subordinate judiciary will be shaken and the officers will be in constant fear of writing a judgment so as not to face a disciplinary enquiry and thus judicial officers cannot act independently or fearlessly. Indee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory provision expressly. (vii) The finding that in 14 other orders he referred to Section 59-A (2) of the Excise Act is by itself not enough to infer misconduct in the passing of the four bail orders in question. (viii) It will be a dangerous proposition to hold that judgments and orders which do not refer expressly to statutory provisions are per se dis-honest judgments. 41. The High Court has erred in not interfering with the order. A valiant attempt was made by Mr. Arjun Garg to sustain the impugned order by contending that a writ court or this Court cannot act as an appellate court over the inquiry report and the only consideration was whether the inquiry had been fairly conducted. We are unable to accept the said contention. In our opinion, for the reasons stated above, the findings in the inquiry report are perverse and are not supported by the evidence on record. We make bold to record a finding that on the available material, no reasonable person would have reached the conclusion that enquiry officer reached. 42. In Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Another [(1999) 7 SCC 739], Saghir Ahmad, J. lucidly explained the principle thus :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t shall be deemed to have continued in service till he attained the normal age of superannuation. Since the appellant has been kept out of service for no fault of his, we are of the opinion that full back wages with all consequential benefits should be given to the appellant. Let the monetary benefits be released within a period of eight weeks from today with interest @ 6 per cent. No order as to costs. 44. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to all the Registrar Generals of the respective High Courts in the country, so as to enable them to draw the attention of the Chief Justices of the High Courts to the same. J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. My esteemed brother Justice K.V. Viswanathan has penned an ineffable judgment. This judgment will go a long way in protecting judicial officers of the district judiciary from being subjected to departmental action for alleged wrong or incorrect exercise of discretion in passing orders of bail without anything more. Brother Viswanathan has put it very pithily, saying that if the complaint of misconduct against the judicial officer is prima facie found to be true then, in such circumstances, disciplinary proceedings must be taken, and no ....