SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana And ... on 26 May, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1395, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 396
Bench: Singh, K.N.
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
Service matter-Whether the High Court was right in recommending termination of the services of the appellant, a judicial officer, on probation, on the ground that his work and conduct were not satisfactory, on complaints of trifling nature and complaints motivated and allegations unsubstantiated, against the appellant.
HEADNOTE:
This appeal by special leave was directed against the Judgment of the High Court, dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the order dispensing with his services. The appellant was appointed as Addl. District and Sessions Judge on probation for two years. While he was on probation, there were certain complaints against him, and an inquiry was held by a Judge of the High Court, as a result whereof the High Court by its resolution recommended the termination of the appellant's services to the State Government. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the said resolution of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition whereupon the State Government issued orders terminating the appellant's services. Aggrieved, the appellant moved this Court, challenging the orders of the High Court and the State government above said.
The appellant contended that since the High Court had resolved that his services should be terminated on the basis of the inquiry report, the constitutional protection available to him under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice had been violated. Counsel for the High Court submitted that the inquiry held was merely to judge the appellant's suitability for service, and the appellant was not entitled to the constitutional protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, or to any opportunity of hearing before taking the decision regarding the termination of his probationary period.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
397
^
HELD: The High Court had no relevant material in coming to the conclusion that the appellant's work and conduct was not satisfactory during his probationary period. The material taken into consideration was non-existent, while the other material was not relevant, and the allegations taken into consideration against him remained unsubstantiated. The High Court erred in holding the appellant's work and conduct to be unsatisfactory, and in terminating his services. [401 A-C]
In one case, adverse remarks made against the appellant by the High Court (Bains, J.) had been directed by this Court in appeal to be expunged as they were found to be unjustified and unwarranted. In another case, members of the Bar Association had passed a resolution condemning the appellant on a trifling matter without applying their mind to the question involved. The members of the Bar practising before the Court should be aware of the legal position and they should not have passed the resolution condemning the appellant without there being any justifiable cause. If the members of the Bar Association pass resolutions against the presiding officers working in subordinate courts without any justifiable cause, it would be difficult for the judicial officers to perform their judicial functions and discharge their responsibilities in an objective and unbiased manner. The High Court, instead of protecting the appellant, distressingly took the Bar resolution into consideration in assessing the appellant's work and conduct. [402B; 404B-D] The complaints against the appellant were enquired into by Justice Surinder Singh, Vigilance Judge, and his report had formed the foundation for the action taken by the High Court against the appellant. An analysis of the report of the Vigilance Judge showed that out of four complaints, in respect of two of them the Vigilance Judge had expressed the opinion that the matter needed further investigation and enquiry and he was not in a position to record any definite finding on the allegations made in those complaints. As regards the third complaint, officers had committed no wrong in postponing the pronouncement of the order, with a view to give time to the parties to compromise. As regards the fourth matter-Khem Chand's complaint-the Vigilance Judge had not expressed any opinion. The report of the Vigilance Judge did not show that the work and conduct of the appellant were not satisfactory or that he was not fit to act as a judicial officer. The complaints in respect of which the Vigilance Judge had observed that the same needed further inquiry, could not at all be considered against the appellant. The High Court was not justified in considering those matters in concluding that the appellant's work and conduct was not satisfactory. [407H; 408A-D]
398
So far as the annual entry on the appellant's confidential roll was A concerned, there was no material against him to show that his work and conduct was unsatisfactory. [408G-H]
While considering complaints of irregularities against the judicial officer on probation, the High Court should have kept in mind that the incidents related to the very first year of appellant's service. Every Judicial officer is likely to commit mistakes of some kind or the other in passing orders in the initial stage of his service, which a mature judicial officer would not do. If the orders are passed without any corrupt motive, the same should be overlooked by the High Court and proper guidance should be provided to him. If after the warning and guidance, the officer on probation is not able to improve, his services may be terminated. [409C-E]
While exercising control over the subordinate judiciary under the Constitution, the High Court is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers. An honest, strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries. If complaints are entertained on trifling matters relating to judicial orders which may have been upheld by the High Court on the judicial side, and if the judicial officers are under constant threat of complaints and enquiry on trifling matters, and if the High Court encourages anonymous complaints, no judicial officer would feel, secure, and it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties in an honest and independent manner. An independent and honest judiciary is a sine qua non for the Rule of law. It is imperative that the High Court should take steps to protect its honest judicial officers by ignoring ill-conceived or motivated complaints made by unscrupulous lawyers and litigants. [409E-G] In this case, the resolution passed by the Bar Association against the appellant was wholly unjustified and the complaints made by others were motivated which did not deserve credit. Even the Vigilance Judge did not record any finding that the appellant was guilty of any corrupt motive or that he had not acted judicially. [409H; 410A] The orders of the High Court and the State Government were set aside. The appellant was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and arrears of salary and allowances and other benefits. [410B-C]
No comments:
Post a Comment