Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. ....However, the learned Judge inquiring the matter eventually came to the conclusion that the bail had been granted by the appellant in utter disregard of judicial norms and on insufficient grounds and based on extraneous consideration with oblique motive and the charges had been proved. It is important to note that the Judge who conducted the enquiry has not stated in his report as to what was the oblique motive or the extraneous consideration involved in the matter.

69. This court in P.C. Joshi vs State of U.P. held that:

"That there was possibility on a given set of facts to arrive at a different conclusion is no ground to indict a judicial officer for taking one view and that too for alleged misconduct for that reason alone. The enquiry officer has not found any other material, which would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or devotion to duty or that he has been actuated (Uploaded on 03/11/2025 at 04:44:12 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40498-DB] (20 of 30) [CW-9906/2010] by any corrupt motive. At best, he may say that the view taken by the appellant is not proper or correct and not attribute any motive to him which is for extraneous consideration that he had acted in that manner. If in every case where an order of a subordinate court is found to be faulty a disciplinary action were to be initiated, the confidence of the subordinate judiciary will be shaken and the officers will be in constant fear of writing a judgment so as not to face a disciplinary enquiry and thus judicial officers cannot act independently or fearlessly. Indeed the words of caution are given in K.K. Dhawan case and A.N. Saxena case that merely because the order is wrong or the action taken could have been different does not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer. In spite of such caution, it is unfortunate that the High Court has chosen to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant in this case."
18. It is trite that the scope of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution, of an order of punishment passed in departmental proceedings, is extremely limited. While exercising such jurisdiction, interference with the decision of the departmental authorities is permitted, if such authority has held the proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by consideration extraneous to the evidence on the merits of the case, or if the conclusion reached by the authority, on the face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. (See: Shashikant S. Patil & Anr. (supra).
38) The findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges are vitiated if reliance is placed on extraneous evidence, to come to conclusion that delinquent officer guilty of charges. The findings were also based on irrelevant evidence, particularly the bail orders relating to Ramesh and Ayub, which were not the subject matter of the charge. The findings of enquiry officer are, on their face, arbitrary, and no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion based on evidence on record. The evidence on record do not even reasonably probabilise the conclusion which was drawn by Enquiry Officer that the delinquent officer passed the order on the third bail application for extraneous consideration or with oblique motive when no discretion lies with him.