Explore the intricate details of a legal case involving disciplinary proceedings and the court’s analysis of the situation. The case raises questions about the termination of a probationer, the communication of performance evaluations, and the grounds for initiating disciplinary actions. The court’s meticulous review of the proceedings sheds light on the importance of procedural fairness and the need for concrete evidence in disciplinary matters. Stay tuned to uncover the complexities of judicial review in this thought-provoking case.
Facts
- The appellant, while posted as Sessions Judge, Anti-Corruption Department, Bharatpur, granted bail to K.K. Jalia, leading to the action against him.
- Multiple bail applications were filed and rejected for the accused, including K.K. Jalia and Alimuddin.
- The appellant’s decision to grant bail was criticized, alleging ulterior motives and extraneous considerations.
- Various dates were set for prosecution sanction, extension of judicial custody, and bail hearings for the accused.
- Inquiries and departmental actions were initiated against the appellant for misconduct and violation of service rules.
- The Higher Judicial Committee declined to recommend the appellant for confirmation after reviewing his records.
- The appellant’s response to the allegations and objections were rejected without a personal hearing.
- The appellant mentioned a lack of prosecution sanction as a reason for granting bail to the accused.
- The appellant was discharged based on recommendations of the Higher Judicial Committee in a Full Court meeting.
- The appeal was filed challenging the discharge decision and the misconduct allegations.
- Various timelines of events related to bail applications, prosecution sanction, and judicial postings were detailed.
- The appellant’s awareness of the High Court bail petition dismissal was brought into question.
- Petitioner completed two years of probation on 17.7.2015 with no extension or confirmation order.
- Bail application of K. K. Jalia was rejected by the Rajasthan High Court.
- Appellant stood first in the selection from Advocates’ Quota under RJS Rules in 2013.
- High Court decided not to confirm petitioner’s services due to doubts about his judicial abilities.
- Petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking quashing of orders related to his discharge and enquiry proceedings.
- Full Court decided to discharge petitioner despite ongoing inquiry based on the Higher Judiciary Committee report.
- Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appellant’s Writ Petition seeking reinstatement.
- Dismissal of the Writ Petition was based on the full court’s decision and overall service record of the petitioner.
- Appellant was appointed as Additional District Judge in 2013 and discharged in 2016 during probation for unsatisfactory services.
Also Read: Legal Analysis in Company Law Case
Issue
- The prosecution’s decision to seek cancellation of bail granted to the accused is not relevant.
- This does not impact the overall consideration of the case.
Also Read: Summons Issuance by Magistrates in Criminal Cases
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the charges against the appellant were vague and lacked details regarding the allegation of passing the bail order for extraneous considerations.
- Three complaints relied upon by the respondent were not communicated to the appellant during his service tenure, with two being filed and closed prior to the Higher Judicial Committee meeting.
- The appellant’s service record showed no infirmities, and the Higher Judicial Committee’s recommendation was solely based on the bail order dated 27.04.2015.
- The respondent’s counsel contended that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant related to the bail order were closed, reserving the right to reopen, and a discharge order was passed.
- The employer’s right to terminate an employee based on allegations without conducting a full inquiry was emphasized, maintaining it was not punitive.
- The order of discharge of the appellant was argued to be a discharge simpliciter, not punitive, as the Inquiry Judge did not reach a conclusion on the charges.
- The High Court’s order terminating the appellant’s services was challenged, highlighting that no opportunity for improvement was provided, and the charges were vague without supporting material.
- The reliance on specific cases and constitutional provisions was made to argue that the termination was not punitive and did not attach any stigma to the appellant.
- The respondent argued that there were no new intervening circumstances when granting bail to the accused.
- The officer on probation did not consider the High Court’s orders while granting bail.
- The rejection of bail by the High Court after the chargesheet was filed was highlighted.
- The respondent contended that previous bail rejections for the accused should have been taken into account by the appellant-officer.
- Three complaints against the appellant during probation, despite being closed, were deemed relevant.
- The respondent stressed the lack of establishing gross impropriety or procedural irregularity by the appellant.
- Mr. Hansaria argued that the approach in judicial review is not to establish truth conclusively but to assess if the employer had the right to discharge a probationer based on allegations.
- Factors like conflicting orders and negligent actions by the appellant were raised as concerns in granting bail.
- The respondent pointed out that good ACRs alone should not guarantee continuation in service.
- The appellant’s reliance on a specific case was deemed misplaced as it did not concern a probationer.
- The appellant’s actions were suggested to be seen as negligence rather than a bona fide mistake.
Also Read: Land Compensation Dispute: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The resolution passed by the Bar Association against the appellant was deemed unjustified and motivated.
- The vigilance judge did not find the appellant guilty of corrupt motives in granting adjournments.
- The non-communication of unsatisfactory performance to the appellant deprived him of the opportunity to improve.
- Contradictory orders passed by the appellant show lack of extraneous motives.
- The lack of strong grounds to suspect the appellant’s bona fides raises doubts on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
- The appellant was deemed competent in passing the bail order, with no proof of extraneous considerations.
- The complaints made against the appellant lacked merit and did not affect his work as a judicial officer.
- The discharge of the appellant without prior intimation about unsatisfactory performance was punitive in nature.
- The ACR remarks for 2015 could not have been the sole basis for the appellant’s discharge.
- The complaints against the appellant were not substantiated with verifiable material, rendering them inconclusive.
- Inconsiderate initiation of disciplinary proceedings could impact the morale of the subordinate judiciary.
- The order of termination was based on misconduct allegations without giving an opportunity for improvement.
- The discharge of the appellant was deemed punitive and affecting his future career without due process.
- The appellant’s grant of bail was within his jurisdiction and not influenced by malice or bias.
- Initiating disciplinary proceedings without substantial evidence can be detrimental to the impartial functioning of the judiciary.
- The lack of specific allegations or extraneous influences in bail orders questions the disciplinary action taken against the appellant.
- The High Court’s disciplinary proceedings were initiated without proper grounds, affecting the appellant’s career unfairly.
- The High Court erred in holding that the discharge order of the appellant was a simpliciter order and not punitive in nature.
- The discharge of the appellant was not a discharge simpliciter and was violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
- The High Court failed to provide reasoning on how the allegation of misconduct related to the bail order was not the basis of the discharge order.
- Review of Reports and ACRs of the appellant and material placed before the Higher Judicial Committee was deemed necessary to determine the basis of the discharge.
- Possibility of arriving at a different conclusion is not sufficient grounds for indicting a judicial officer for misconduct
- Termination of services of a probationer without holding an inquiry or providing a chance to show cause is not permissible
- Order of reversion following an inquiry into the probationer’s conduct should be in line with constitutional requirements
- Communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) promotes transparency and natural justice principles
- Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers for wrong judgments is disapproved unless there is evidence of misconduct or extraneous motives
- Non-communication of ACRs to the appellant in the present case is deemed arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
- Order of termination of a probationer can be seen as punishment if it is not in accordance with procedural standards
- Enquiry into charges of misconduct, inefficiency, or corruption is required before terminating a probationer without invoking Article 311(2)
- Disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated solely based on incorrect judicial orders unless misconduct or extraneous influences are evident
- Mere suspicion cannot constitute misconduct, clear allegations are necessary for disciplinary actions
- Importance of communicating every entry in the ACR to the public servant for improvement and accountability purposes
- High courts must exercise caution and care when taking disciplinary action based on judicial orders
- Appellant to be reinstated with all consequential benefits and seniority.
- Appellant entitled to 50% backwages to be paid within four months.
- Appellant’s act considered negligent, not misconduct.
- No strong grounds to suspect appellant’s bona fides.
Decision
- The writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed.
- The appeal is allowed.
- The impugned order of the High Court dated 21.10.2019 is set aside.
- The discharge order dated 27.01.2016 is quashed.
Case Title: ABHAY JAIN Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN (2022 INSC 309)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002029-002029 / 2022
