Integrity of judge cannot be doubted only because he granted adjournments: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Integrity of a judge cannot be doubted merely because he granted adjournments, the Madhya Pradesh High Court said while setting aside an order compulsorily retiring a district judge from services [KC Rajwani v State Of Madhya Pradesh Law & Legislative Affairs]..A Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra said that whether a 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 since such an adjournment order might involve lot factual situations which may not always be recorded in the order sheet."One really does not know as to what happens when an adjournment is sought for. 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. Therefore, we do not think that this could be held against the concerned Judge," the High Court ruled.The Court was hearing the petitioner’s challenge to an order of compulsory retirement passed against him by the High Court on the administrative side.He was charged for granting bail contrary to law and for granting frequent adjournments showing lack of devotion to his work.The court found that such serious consequences could not be based on inferences.“It is needless for us to state that whenever a man is being punished and that too with such serious consequences, the same cannot be as a result of an inference.”.The allegations against the petitioner were with reference to orders passed by him while he was serving as an Additional District Judge at Guna. The Enquiring Officer’s report exonerated him of all the charges. However, the High Court disagreed with these findings and eventually, issued the order under challenge.The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that he was not granted an opportunity of personal hearing, and there were no complaints against the him throughout his service..The bench opined that the findings regarding grant of bail with a corrupt motive or extraneous considerations was drawn on the basis of an inference, and thus, could not be upheld..Dealing with the allegation of grant of adjournments, the division bench stated that whether or not a judge was justified in granting adjournments cannot be ascertained by merely looking at the order sheets.“We fail to understand as to how the Disciplinary Authority comes to a conclusion that even the leniency to be shown by the Judges to the Bar requires to be ascertained in a microscopic examination,” the Court said..Many submissions, requests and such events that take place in the open court are best left between the discussions of the Bar and the Bench and not recorded, it was further noted.“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,” the Court added..Therefore, the Court stated that simply because the Judge grants an adjournment, it could not be said that he lacks devotion to work. With this, the bench examined the petitioner’s official record, and found nothing to indicate even a suggestion regarding his integrity.“For all these reasons, we are of the view that the Disciplinary Authority committed a gross error in reversing the findings of the Enquiry Officer," it was thus held..The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Brian Da’silva and advocate Abhishek Dilraj while government advocate Suyash Thakur and advocate Ashish Shroti appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]