The Madhya Pradesh High Court while recently setting aside order of the Disciplinary Authority against a former lower court Judge observed that repeated adjournments granted by the Bench cannot be treated as 'misconduct.'
The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra also set aside the order of his compulsory retirement and further noted that factual situations of courtroom doesn't reflect fully in mere number of adjournments.
The Judge who was promoted to Higher Judicial Services was held guilty by the Disciplinary Authority, inter-alia for granting bail with 'corrupt or oblique motive' and for granting adjournments on 'extremely flimsy grounds'.
A total of five Articles were brought against the Judge. The Enquiring Officer held that the charges were not been proved, the Disciplinary Authority however came to an alternate conclusion and reversed the same. Later, order regarding his compulsory retirement was passed. He has now challenged both in the present petition.
The Counsel for the petitioner-Judge argued that no hearing opportunity was granted to his client. He contended that entire allegations against the petitioner were with reference to certain judicial orders which couldn't have been interfered with. Further the Counsel submitted that there was no complaint against the petitioner in his entire career as a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services and alleged that the respondents have victimized the petitioner and have wrongly removed him from service.
The Court didn't approve of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Its view that disregard to mandatory provision of Section 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act can be inferred as corrupt motive or extraneous consideration didn't set well with the Court. The Court stated that at the most it only reflects upon his judicial competency and not that he is either corrupt or the order has been passed for extraneous consideration.
"If even according to the Disciplinary Authority, the grant of bail is in violation of the mandatory provisions, the same may reflect upon the competency of the Judge in understanding the law. It cannot lead to a conclusion that he is either corrupt or the order has been passed for extraneous consideration. It is trite to mention that there are many judicial orders that may be considered to be right or may be considered to be wrong. It is not necessary that in every case where bail is granted, the same has to always be looked into with suspicious eyes that it is granted with corrupt motive or for an extraneous consideration. We do not find any logic or reason, let alone an explanation for arriving at such a conclusion. There may be a possibility that the concerned Judge has either misread the evidence or has applied it wrongly."
As far as the charges of grant of adjournments were concerned, the Court expressed somewhat shock as to how can the Disciplinary Authority bring under microscop even the leniency shown by the Judges to the Bar. It thus observed:
"Whether the concerned Judge was justified in granting adjournments or not, cannot be ascertained by merely looking at the order sheets and the number of times, the case has been adjourned. There are so many factual situations that happen in the open Court which cannot always come about in the order sheets of the Judge. Many of the submissions, many of the requests and many such events that happen in the open Court are best left between the discussions of the Bar and the Bench. It is not necessary that each and every word that an advocate states in an open Court requires to be transcribed into the order sheets. The Judge holding a Court is not a stenographer to take down the dictation of each and every advocate. Only that portion of the submissions made by the concerned advocate that is relevant for the case or relevant for the orders of that date alone, requires to be mentioned in the order sheets."
The Court added that it is on the discretion of the Judge as to what should form the order for the day or not.
'It is not proper to come to a conclusion that only because an adjournment has been granted, the integrity of a Judge has to be doubted. It is a matter of fact that whenever a matter is listed, that too, for arguments, the learned counsels always seek time to either prepare themselves or for other reasons. An adjournment may be granted."
The Disciplinary Authority's conclusion on lack of devotion to duty by the Judge based on the number of adjournments also faced Court's scrutiny as it mentioned that if the same is to be accepted on a face value, would infer that no Judge should grant any adjournment to any lawyer in any case at any point of time
"A number of adjournments are given by the Judges in various cases, but only because bail has been granted, does not mean that it has been granted for corrupt reasons. Only because adjournment is granted, it cannot be said that it lacks devotion by the Officer."
The petition was eventually allowed.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
