Really Preposterous To Assume That Judicial Officer Cannot Commit Mistake: Rajasthan HC Quashes Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Imposed On Former ADSJ
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on Amar Singh, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge while observing that it is “preposterous” to assume that a judicial officer cannot commit a mistake.
The Court allowed the Petition filed by Amar Singh (Petitioner) who challenged the very basis of instituting the disciplinary proceeding against him for granting bail to a murder accused despite the dismissal of a prior bail petition and the pendency of a transfer petition before the High Court. The disciplinary inquiry led to the penalty of compulsory retirement for the Petitioner.
A Division Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur held, “ It seems that the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court was quite divided and perhaps there were discordant voices and that was the reason the decision to impose punishment upon the petitioner was taken by ‘majority’ and it was not a unanimous decision of the Full Court. In summation, there was no material produced in the departmental inquiry to connect the petitioner with the charges framed against him and it was a case of ‘no evidence’. Therefore, having regard to the admitted facts, we are inclined to hold that the disciplinary authority failed to take note of the explanation offered by the petitioner. In our considered opinion, the punishment order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed.”
Advocate Anil Vyas appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Manoj Bhandari represented the Respondents.
The Petitioner had earlier refused bail to the accused following which the High Court similarly dismissed the bail application. Later, the Petitioner allowed the second bail petition for the accused, which was subsequently challenged by the complainant. After the High Court cancelled the bail, the complainant accused the Petitioner of judicial impropriety and alleged that he ignored the pendency of the transfer petition while granting bail.
An inquiry was ordered against the Petitioner. The Registrar (Vigilance) conducted a preliminary investigation, and a memorandum of charges was served upon him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
The Petitioner stated that there was no substantial change in circumstances when he granted bail, but he was acting in accordance with the timeline for disposing of bail applications. He argued that the complainant had delayed the proceedings in the sessions case and had not cooperated with the court. Furthermore, the complainant had not presented any stay order or evidence of the High Court’s decision on the transfer petition.
Based on the inquiry report, the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court resolved to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the Petitioner under Rule 14(v) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958. The order was issued in 2015, under the authority of the Governor of Rajasthan.
The High Court remarked, “If an order is passed without there being any corrupt motive the same cannot be made the basis for initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the judicial officer. No one is infallible and the Constitution itself provides the hierarchy of Courts and a provision for review under Article 137.”
“To err is human and it would be really preposterous to assume that a judicial officer cannot commit mistake of any kind in passing the judicial orders. A mistake committed by the judicial officer may some time seem to be an intolerable error but the right course to deal with such a situation would be to correct the mistake and to ensure dignity of the Court,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court observed, “This is one of the canons of judicial ethics that the judicial officers perform their duties without unnecessary delays and ensure that the justice is not delayed. Mere knowledge of the pendency of the transfer petition in the High Court was not such a compelling reason for the petitioner not to deal with 2nd bail petition.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:35400-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Anil Vyas
Respondents: Senior Advocate Manoj Bhandari; Advocate Aniket Tater
