No Disciplinary Action Against Judge Merely Because 'Wrong Order' Has Been Passed: Gujarat High Court Reinstates Judicial Officer

The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (July 9) reinstated a judicial officer dismissed from service for alleged misconduct, engaging in corrupt practices and dereliction of duty wherein he purportedly forced a party to handover seized oil-tankers to its owners which were booked for theft of high-speed diesel, terming it unfair and unlawful. 

The court further emphasized that unless there are clear-cut allegations of misconduct, disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated "merely on the basis that a wrong order" has been passed by the judicial officer or on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect, or that they have been negligent in ignoring any fact.

The court observed that allegations of extraneous influences, corrupt practice must be proved by persuasive evidence, not through "surmises and conjectures". 

A division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice RT Vachchani in its order said:

"The foregoing authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, when applied to the facts of the present case, lead to only one inescapable conclusion—that the impugned order of dismissal is not founded on any legally admissible evidence and rests entirely on the ipse dixit, conjectures, and surmises of the Disciplinary Authority. In fact, this is a classic case of no evidence. None of the parties to the proceedings were aggrieved by the orders passed by the petitioner in the discharge of his judicial functions. However, we may add a caveat, that the accusation of extraneous consideration or corrupt practice emerging from anonymous complaint cannot be ignored merely because all the parties to the proceedings have accepted the decision of the Court. There may be cases, where the parties to the proceedings may have acted in sync or in connivance to obtain an order, and none of them may take risk to challenge the order/decision. In such cases, the High Court cannot remain mute spectator, and allow the misconduct to be perpetuated by sitting idle on any complaint even anonymous, if the allegations prima facie appear to be true. In the present case, we do not and these elements emerging from the evidence". 

Considering the merits of the matter and material on record, and noting the settled principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court, the bench opined that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the findings and dismissal order are unsustainable in law, and demands interference. 

"We declare that the disciplinary proceedings initiated and concluded vide charge-sheet dated 23.10.2008 against the petitioner as unfair and unjust. As a sequel, we quash and set aside the Notification dated 06.05.2011 imposing the punishment of dismissal under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971," the court said. 

Background

The petitioner judicial officer had moved the high court challenging a May 6, 2011 notification passed by the state government based on a recommendation made by the respondent No.2 High Court, imposing "punishment of dismissal" on the petitioner under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1971. 

The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in 1996. He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2005. A charge-sheet dated 23.10.2008 was issued to the petitioner, while he was serving as an Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, District Kachchh at Bhuj alleging that he had granted an ex-parte mandatory injunction on 27.08.2007 to the plaintiffs in a civil suit (owners of the tankers) despite being fully aware that a criminal complaint regarding the theft of oil from two tankers was pending.

It was further alleged that the petitioner ignored an application filed by partner of M/s.Jay Ambica Oil Carriers seeking to be joined as a party respondent in the suit and instead, the judicial officer compelled the defendant of the civil suit i.e., Essar Oil Limited, to hand over possession of the tankers to the plaintiffs.

It was alleged that the petitioner has committed "corrupt practice and dereliction of his duty", which tantamounts to grave misconduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, violating the civil services rules. An inquiry was conducted and a chargesheet was filed listing four charges against the petitioner, out of which only first charge which is also interconnected with fourth charge–for passing an ex-parte mandatory interim injunction order dated 27.08.2007 in favour of the plaintiffs by adopting corrupt practice–was proved.

The high court (on administrative side) disagreed with the inquiry's findings on charge 2 and 3 and issued a show cause notice to petitioner who submitted a reply. Thereafter May 2011 notification was issued dismissing the petitioner. 

Findings

The court noted that the allegation against the petitioner was that he compelled the respondent company-defendant in lawsuit to hand over possession of the tankers to the plaintiffs (tanker owners) thereby openly assisted the plaintiffs in obtaining possession of the seized tankers, involved in the commission of theft of high speed diesel. It was alleged that the petitioner, for ulterior motive, did not pass any order on application for joining party. 

The chargesheet alleged that the petiitoner was guilty of dereliction of duty, indulging in corrupt practices, committing the aforesaid acts of misconduct and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial officer. 

The court observed that there was "not even a speck of evidence" on record in the entire disciplinary proceedings to suggest that the petitioner has, for extraneous consideration or for any personal benefit, passed the orders in civil suit.

"No material has surfaced on record to establish that the petitioner indulged in corrupt practice or acted with an intent to favour the plaintiffs, or that he compelled the defendant– Company to hand over the tankers detained in their depot to the plaintiffs. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the tankers were in the custody of the police, nor is there any proof to indicate that the petitioner was aware of such custody pursuant to the filing of a criminal complaint. On the contrary, the material placed on record shows that the vehicles remained in the depot of the defendant– Company and were never seized by the police as muddamal property. The order dated 19.09.2007 whereby the petitioner rejected the application filed by M/s. Jay Ambica Oil Carriers seeking impleadment, has not been challenged by any party. The Inquiry Officer has, in fact, recorded a categorical finding that the said order was just and proper, as there was no legal dispute between the said contractor and the plaintiffs (owners of the tankers). Therefore, no legal or procedural error can be attributed to the petitioner in rejecting the said application," the court said.

It noted that the advocate appearing for respondent defedant oil company deposed in favour of the petitioner, stating that the Company had no objection to the tankers being handed over to the plaintiffs and contained a "consensual statement" made on behalf of the Company, to the extent that there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner compelled either the learned advocate or the Company to part with possession of the vehicles.

It noted that the civil suit initiated by the tanker onwers was later withdrawn unconditionally, and such withdrawal was not objected to by any party, including the contractor who had earlier sought to join the proceedings.

"The entire case of the Disciplinary Authority is thus founded on nebulous factors. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, while disagreeing with the well-reasoned conclusions of the Inquiry Officer with respect to two charges, are based on no persuasive evidence and does not inspire judicial confidence," the court said. 

The court directed the high court to reinstate the judicial officer as an Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC. It further said that a 2008 Departmental Inquiry, which was lodged against the petitioner where it was alleged that he had taken Rs.1,50,000 from the builder and dismissed civil suit instituted by the victim of earthquake, but which was subsequently closed be revived continued from the stage it was closed. 

The court thus directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated within six weeks and partly allowed the plea. 

Case title: X v/s State of Gujarat and Anr.

Click Here To Read/Download Order