The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed an order awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement to an Additional District & Sessions Judge in Sangaria district [Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others].

In doing so, a Bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Kuldeep Mathur emphasised that an order passed without any corrupt motive cannot become the basis for disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer, even if the judge may have made a mistake.

"If an order is passed without there being any corrupt motive the same cannot be made the basis for initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the judicial officer. No one is infallible and the Constitution itself provides the hierarchy of Courts and a provision for review under Article 137. To err is human and it would be really preposterous to assume that a judicial officer cannot commit mistake of any kind in passing the judicial orders. A mistake committed by the judicial officer may some time seem to be an intolerable error but the right course to deal with such a situation would be to correct the mistake and to ensure dignity of the Court," the Court said.

The Court passed the order on a plea challenging the punishment imposed on judicial officer Amar Singh, who was accused of misconduct for having allowed a bail plea by a murder accused without awaiting the outcome of a transfer petition pending before the High Court.

By way of background, judge Singh had initially dismissed the first bail plea by the accused, Satyanarayan, as not pressed. After the High Court too dismissed the bail plea in the first round of litigation (as not pressed), the accused moved a second bail petition before the trial court presided over by judge Singh.

The additional sessions judge allowed the second bail petition in June 2010 after noting that the accused had remained in jail for around a year and on finding that the trial was being protracted due to the complainant's lapses.

In the meanwhile, the complainant had filed a plea before the High Court to transfer the case out of judge Singh's court, on apprehensions that the judge favored the accused.

The June 2010 order granting bail to Satyanarayanan was then challenged before the High Court, which cancelled the grant of bail in 2011 and also criticised judge Singh for having granted bail when there appeared to be no change of circumstances after the first bail plea was dismissed.

The matter was then placed before the High Court Chief Justice, after which disciplinary proceedings were initiated. After an inquiry, the penalty of compulsory retirement was eventually imposed on the additional sessions judge in 2015.

Judge Singh challenged this turn of events before the High Court. On November 14 this year, the High Court concluded that there was no evidence to justify imposing such punishment on the additional sessions judge. It noted that even the complainant, during inquiry

“In summation, there was no material produced in the departmental inquiry to connect the petitioner with the charges framed against him and it was a case of ‘no Evidence’", the Court held.

The Court found merit in Singh's defence that he had allowed the second bail plea, partly on account of the delay being caused by the complainant.

It noted that even the complainant had admitted during inquiry proceedings that he had not seriously pursued the transfer petition before the High Court, which had been pending for about six months when the second bail petition was allowed.

The Court also noted that the transfer petition was listed for hearing on as many as twenty-one occasions before it was eventually dismissed as infructuous by the High Court.

It added that mere knowledge of the pendency of the transfer petition in the High Court was not such a compelling reason for Singh to have not dealt with the second bail plea. It was also pointed out that the first bail petition was only dismissed as not pressed, and not on merits.

The Court went on to observe that there is hardly any material against Singh to conclude that his entertaining of the second bail petition was an act of misconduct. It found that the bail order passed by Singh was, in fact, well-reasoned. The Court concluded that Singh could not be faulted for deciding on the bail plea to avoid further delays.

"This is one of the canons of judicial ethics that the judicial officers perform their duties without unnecessary delays and ensure that the justice is not delayed," the High Court added.

Moreover, the Court stated that to ensure that the subordinate judiciary is robust and impartial, the High Court should be mindful of the ground realities and should not encourage frivolous complaints.

"Else, the judicial officers would be in a state of dilemma in every case dealt with by them and it would be really difficult for them to discharge their duty in an independent manner," it added.

Advocate Anil Vyas appeared for the petitioner, Amar Singh.

Senior Advocate Manoj Bhandari and Advocate Ankit Tater represented the State.

[Read Order]