Respect or hang our head in shame?
HC fines itself for wrong judgment
To Pay Up Rs 15K For Dismissing Lower Court Judge
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Ahmedabad: In a curious case of judicial self-introspection, the Gujarat high court has imposed a penalty on itself for misjudging a case.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice K S Radhakrishnan on Friday imposed a cost of Rs 15,000 on the high court for neglecting judicial tradition in a case that led to the dismissal of a lower court judge. “Judges are at times poor judges of judges, especially in judicial administration,’’ the division bench observed while hearing S J Pathak, who was first suspended in 1999 and dismissed seven years later for granting bail to an accused in a serious case without considering settled principles of law.
Pathak faced two departmental inquiries. The report was then placed before a disciplinary committee of Justice B J Shethna and Justice D K Trivedi (both now retired), who “tentatively’’ held that charges were proved against the judge. It was not supported by any reasoning.
Since the conclusions were “tentative’’, the report was place before another disciplinary committee of Justice N G Nandi and Justice M S Shah. This committee in 2003 exonerated Pathak of all charges. In wake of conflicting conclusions, the report was placed before the HC for perusal
of all judges. In a chamber meeting, all judges did not accept the conclusion arrived at by Justice Nandi and Justice Shah and decided to entrust the case with Justice Shethna again. In 2006, Justice Shethna held that all charges against Pathak were proved and recommended his dismissal. Pathak filed a petition and the bench of Justice Radhakrishnan and Justice A S Dave pulled up the HC for referring the case to Justice Shethna for re-consideration, particularly when Pathak had expressed apprehension that he was biased.
The Chief Justice ordered return of Pathak to service immediately and made observations against the HC’s decision of sending the case back to Justice Shethna, who had “prejudged’’ the case, which led to a decision that was “vitiated by bias and liable to be set aside’’.
