Judicial officer can't be put to ordeal of disciplinary action just because orders were wrong: SC

New Delhi, Jan 5 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday said just because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgment, a judicial officer cannot be put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding or a prosecution, as it set aside the termination of a district judge in Madhya Pradesh for adopting different yardsticks in granting bail to accused under the Excise Act.

The court said a fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary, as much as an independent judiciary itself is the foundation on which the rule of law rests.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan said a judicial officer is tasked with the onerous duty of deciding cases and invariably, one party to a case would face defeat 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. A large number of cases are listed in a day and most of the judicial officers give their very best while discharging their duties," it said.

Justice Viswanathan said the case highlights the unfortunate plight of a judicial officer, Nirbhay Singh Suliya, who, after 27 years of unblemished record, was removed from service just because of four judicial orders by which he had enlarged certain parties thereon on bail.

The bench allowed the appeal of Suliya, who was terminated from service by the state government on the recommendation of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after an inquiry officer found substance in charges of corruption in passing the bail orders.

The bench said, "The order of removal dated September 2, 2015, the order of the appellate authority dated March 17, 2016, and the impugned order of the high court are all set aside. The appellant 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 at the rate of 6 per cent...." The top court added that "it should be ensured that only because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgment, without anything more, a judicial officer is not put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding or a prosecution".

It found flaws with the inquiry report as neither the complainant nor the stenographer, who was alleged to be involved in corruption, was examined by the inquiry officer.

"In our opinion, for the reasons stated above, the findings in the inquiry report are perverse and not supported by findings on record. We make bold to record a finding that, on the available material, no reasonable person would have reached the conclusion that the enquiry officer reached," it said.

The bench said 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 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 false and frivolous complaints. Such proceedings would include, in appropriate cases, proceedings for contempt of court.

"In case the person filing or engineering false and frivolous complaints is a recalcitrant member of the Bar, apart from proceedings for contempt of court, reference to the bar council should be made for disciplinary action. Bar councils, on receipt of such references, have to dispose of the matter expeditiously," the top court directed.

It said equally, if a complaint of misconduct against a judicial officer is prima facie found to be true, prompt action to initiate disciplinary proceedings should be taken and no leniency should be shown if the charges are established.

"Not only this, in appropriate cases where criminal prosecution is warranted against a judicial officer, the high court should not hesitate to have the same initiated. That is the only way to weed out black sheep sullying the fair name of the judiciary. Due care and caution must be exercised by the high court in initiating such proceedings," the bench underscored.

It said when false allegations fly thick and fast, judicial officers cannot react and a high court, which is vested with supervisory control, has to exercise great caution and circumspection.

Referring to the parameters laid down in a 2016 verdict of the Supreme Court, the bench said the high court should follow those when faced with an issue on the administrative side.

Justice Pardiwala, who concurred with Justice Viswanathan's views, said the judgment will go a long way in protecting judicial officers of the district judiciary from being subjected to departmental action for alleged wrong or an incorrect exercise of discretion in passing orders of bail, without anything more.

He said he agrees with the view that if a complaint of misconduct against a judicial officer is prima facie found to be true, then, in such circumstances, disciplinary proceedings must be taken and no leniency should be shown if the charges are established and in an appropriate case, even criminal prosecution may be instituted against the officer concerned. PTI MNL RC