Orissa High Court: In a writ petition by a Civil Judge, Senior Division to quash the departmental proceedings initiated against him by the High Court, the Division Bench of Chittaranjan Dash and SK Sahoo, J. held that the initiation of departmental proceedings against him was in strict compliance with the guideline laid down by the then Chief Justice of India vide D.O. letter No. CJI/CC/Comp/2014/1405 and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and therefore, his claim was bereft of merit, hence, dismissed.
The Senior Civil Judge sought quashing of the departmental proceedings on the ground that the very initiation of the said proceeding was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Chief Justice of India for dealing with the complaints against the subordinate judiciary, circulated by the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner, while discharging his duties as Senior Civil Judge-cum-ASJ at Khariar, Nuapada District was subjected to a complaint by the Secretary of the Judicial Bar Association, Khariar. The Judicial Bar sent a letter to the Chief Justice with a request to conduct an enquiry over the matter and to take necessary action against the Civil Judge. Serious allegations were made regarding his conduct and behaviour as a Senior Civil Judge. The High Court, decided to examine the authenticity of the allegation and directed the District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada, to conduct an enquiry and submit his report. The Bar also unanimously resolved to boycott the Court of the Civil Judge. Subsequently, the Judicial Bar, Khariar and Khariar Bar Association made a collective request to the Administrative Judge for transfer of the Civil Judge.
The District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada, submitted a detailed report and the Civil Judge also submitted his reply, as sought by the Court, refuting the allegations made by the members of the Judicial Bar, Khariar by calling them vague and baseless.
The Court initiated a departmental proceeding and the same was forwarded to the Civil Judge along with the articles of charge seeking his acknowledgement and a written statement of defence within the stipulated period of time.
The Civil Judge’s case was that the complaint on basis of which the proceeding were initiated, was not supported by sworn affidavits, as required by the guidelines in D.O. letter No. CJI/CC/Comp/2014/1405 dated 03-10-2014 in as much as, the Bar’s Resolution was not even properly signed and “Sd/-” was annotated over the word “President” at the foot of the said Resolution and it also did not contain any signature of any bar members, rendering the continuance of disciplinary proceeding untenable and liable to be quashed.
The Government Advocate’s submission was that although the complaint lacked sworn affidavits, its authenticity was supported by it having been sent on the official letterhead of the Judicial Bar Association, duly signed by both the President and the Secretary of the Bar Association.
Guidelines for dealing with the complaints against the subordinate Judiciary
The D.O. letter No. CJI/CC/Comp/2014/1405 dated 03-10-2014, was circulated as a guideline by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice for dealing with the complaints against the subordinate judiciary, wherein the High Courts and subordinate judiciary were directed not to entertain any complaint against a judicial officer, unless it is accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable material to substantiate the allegation. The authenticity of the complaints must be ascertained before any action is taken on it. In view of the provisions of the Article 235 of the Constitution, further action relating to the grievance/complaints against the judicial officers lies at the High Court level.
Analysis and Decision
On perusal of the said guideline, the Court said that the words “accompanied by sworn affidavits,” and “verifiable material to substantiate the allegation” have to be read together in a complete and comprehensive manner. The Court said that merely because a complaint is not supported by sworn affidavits, it does not automatically warrant an outright dismissal. On a complete and comprehensive reading of the said guideline, the Court said that a complaint is not supposed to be ignored from its very inception without even verifying the legitimacy of the complaint as nowhere in the guideline the High Court is debarred from initiating its own enquiry over any complaint where the allegations prima facie reveals verifiable material supporting the complaint subject to an enquiry on the authenticity of the allegations against judicial officer concerned. The Court stated that the object of initiating an enquiry in the first place is to ensure that serious allegations can be investigated thoroughly, even if the initial complaint lacks sworn affidavit, which underscores the High Court’s authority and discretion in managing the subordinate judiciary.
The Court clarified that the requirement for sworn affidavits and verifiable material ensures that the process is fair and that decisions are not arbitrary, as a precaution suggested to protect the judicial officers from unwarranted harassment. Further, the Court added that the said guidelines were designed to balance the need to protect judicial officers from frivolous complaints with the necessity of addressing genuine grievances. It is to uphold the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and judicial independence, ensuring that the judiciary function effectively and impartially. The guideline is to reinforce the importance of due process in handling complaints against judicial officers. It ensures that complaints are evaluated based on evidence and merit, thereby upholding the rule of law.
In the matter at hand, the Court noted that the complaint, submitted by the Judicial Bar Association, Khariar, was addressed to the Chief Justice vide Letter, accompanied by a resolution passed by it on 09-01-2022. The Court said that the resolution, which raised significant concerns about the conduct and behaviour of the Civil Judge, was duly signed by several members of the Bar, thus providing verifiable material to substantiate the allegations.
Furthermore, the Court said that the resolution by the Judicial Bar Association, Khariar, contained the notation “Sd/-“ indicating approval by the signatory. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that several members of the Bar have actually signed the said resolution, reinforcing its legitimacy. Additionally, the complaint letter and all other communications sent to the Court bear the valid stamp and signature of the Secretaries of both, the Khariar Bar Association and Judicial Bar Association, Khariar further validating the authenticity of the documents. The Court also noted that the complaint was sent in the official letterhead of the Judicial Bar Khariar, duly signed by the Secretary deserved to be considered, but the Court before proceeding upon the said complaint, decided to proceed with an independent enquiry first.
Further, the Court said that the process of Departmental Enquiry process adhered to the guidelines outlined, ensuring that the authenticity of the allegations was thoroughly verified before any formal action was taken. The preliminary enquiry included recording sworn testimonies from multiple advocates and obtaining substantial documentary evidence. This process ensured that the proceedings were not influenced by vested interests or personal agendas, thereby aligning with the guideline to maintain fairness and non-arbitrariness in handling complaints against judicial officers. Therefore, the Court held that the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the Civil Judge was neither defective nor illegal, and was in compliance with the guideline issued.
Considering the gravity of the allegations and the substantial evidence collected during the enquiry, the Court said that prima facie there appeared material that Civil Judge’s behaviour was inconsistent with the expectations and responsibilities of a judicial officer, undermining the integrity and reputation of the judiciary, warranting strict disciplinary action.
[Santosh Kumar Agarwal v. Orissa High Court, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1952, decided on: 08-08-2024]
Judgment Authored by: Justice Chittaranjan Dash
Buy Constitution of India HERE
