On Friday, the Supreme Court of India has given a verdict on the viewpoint of Judges and how it affects the judgements.
It said, in Sadhna Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. that 'Relief Oriented' judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an Officer.
The bench comprising of CJI SA Bobde, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant set aside the dismissal of a Judicial Officer.
The Court remarked that mere suspicion cannot constitute 'misconduct' and any 'probability' of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, even though the standard of proof would obviously not be at par with that in a criminal trial.
The appellant herein, a Judicial Officer was dismissed after a disciplinary inquiry conducted on him in which it was found that she 'unduly' awarded an additional amount to claimants in two land acquisition cases.
Aggrieved by the order, she went to the High Court which dismissed the challenge against the order of dismissal.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court was approached.
The Top Court noted that there is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on the part of the appellant.
The bench observed:
We are also not oblivious to the fact that mere suspicion cannot constitute 'misconduct'. Any 'probability' of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, even though the standard of proof would obviously not be at par with that in a criminal trial. While applying these yardsticks, the High Court is expected to consider the existence of differing standards and approaches amongst different judges. There are innumerable instances of judicial officers who are liberal in granting bail, awarding compensation under MACT or for acquired land, backwages to workmen or mandatory compensation in other cases of tortious liabilities. Such relief oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer.
The bench further said that it is the duty of High Courts to extend their protective umbrella and ensure that upright and straightforward Judicial Officers are not subjected to the unmerited onslaught. It added:
Furthermore, one cannot overlook the reality of our being a country wherein countless complainants are readily available without hesitation to tarnish the image of the judiciary, often for mere pennies or even cheap momentary popularity. Sometimes a few disgruntled members of the Bar also join hands with them, and officers of the subordinate judiciary are usually the easiest target. It is, therefore, the duty of High Courts to extend their protective umbrella and ensure that upright and straightforward judicial officers are not subjected to the unmerited onslaught.
Final adjudication results not matter to be taken into consideration
The Court though undertook the High Court view that the end result of adjudication does not matter. What is of relevance is whether the delinquent officer had taken illegal gratification (monetary or otherwise) or had been swayed by extraneous considerations while conducting the process.
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.
Observing the above, the Court thus discarded the dismissal offer.
There is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on the part of the appellant. Instead, the very basis of the finding of 'misbehavior' is the end result itself, which as per the High Court was so shocking that it gave rise to a natural suspicion as to the integrity and honesty of the appellant. Although this might be right in a vacuum, however, given how the end result itself has been untouched by superior courts and instead in one of the two cases, the compensation only increased, no such inference can be made. Thus, the entire case against the appellant collapses like a house of cards.
The Case was pro bono represented by Senior Adv Dushyant Dave assisted by Advocate Shirin Khajuria.
The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising of CJI SA Bobde, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant on 06-03-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
