No Disciplinary Action against Judicial Officer for Merely Passing a Wrong Order; Mere Negligence Not Misconduct

Case: Abhay Jain vs High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

Coram: Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran

Case No.: CA 2029 OF 2022

Court Observation: “We also find merit in the submission of the learned counsel of the appellant that the charges filed against the appellant are vague in nature and that absolutely no details have been provided regarding the said allegation of passing the bail order for extraneous considerations/ ulterior motive. In this context, there is no detail provided as to what was the said extraneous consideration or ulterior motive, but merely an inference has been drawn on the basis of suspicion. Further, the record reveals that no complaint or other material exists which could form the basis of the said allegations”

“We hold that the appellant may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he did not carefully go through the case file and did not take notice of the order of the High Court which was on his file. This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct. Moreover, the enquiry officer virtually sat as a court of appeal picking holes in the order granting bail, even when he could not find any extraneous reason for the grant of the bail order. Notably, in the present case, there was not a string of continuous illegal orders that have been alleged to be passed for extraneous considerations. The present case revolves only around a single bail order, and that too was passed with competent jurisdiction. As has been rightly held by this Court in Sadhna Chaudhary (supra), mere suspicion cannot constitute “misconduct”. Any ‘probability’ of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, and this requirement has not been fulfilled in the present case. These observations assume importance in light of the specific fact that there was no allegation of illegal gratification against the present appellant. As has been rightly held by this Court, such relief-oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer.”

Previous Posts

Insurance Company Not Liable To Pay Compensation If Heavy Goods Vehicle Is Driven By Person Holding Light Motor Vehicle License: Karnataka High Court

Arbitral Fee under Fourth Schedule Based on Aggregate Value of Claim & Counter-Claim: Delhi High Court

Party Having Right of Appeal Does Not Have Corresponding Right to Insist For Consideration of Appeal by Forum That Was No Longer In Existence: Supreme Court

No Public Right Is Superior To Defence Of The Country: Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Challenge To Land Acquisition For ITBP Near LAC

Appointment under Outstanding Sportsperson Quota Can Be Made Only When There Is ‘Direct Affiliation’ With Indian Olympic Association: Rajasthan HC

Private Doctors Submitting Sketchy Medical Reports To Courts Are Guilty Of Fabricating False Evidence Download Judgement

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – True Test Is Whether Appellate Court Can Pronounce Judgment without Considering Additional Evidence Sought To Be Adduced: Supreme Court

Article 227 – High Court cannot go deep into Factual Issues like an Appellate Body: Supreme Court

States Transfer Policy Must Give Consideration to Importance of Protecting Employees’ Family Life: Supreme Court

Keywords

Disciplinary Action, Judicial Officer, Negligence, Misconduct