Showing Undue Favour To A Party Under The Guise Of Passing Judicial Orders Is The Worst Kind Of Judicial Dishonesty And Misconduct: Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer

CAUSE TITLE:
Muzaffar Hussain versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

DATE OF ORDER:
06 May 2022

JUDGE(S):
The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

PARTIES:
Appellant: Muzaffar Hussain
Respondent(s): Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

SUBJECT

The challenge in the instant appeal was for an order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The Writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the order of punishment issued by the respondentafter the decision of the Full Court of the High Court considering the report of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the disciplinary actions initiated against the appellant for the alleged misconduct committed by him during his tenure as a judicial officer.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

U.P. Govt. Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.

Rule 3. General. -

Every Government servant shall at all times

1. maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.
2. conduct himself in accordance with the specific or implied orders of Government regulating behaviour and conduct.

OVERVIEW

• The appellant had joined the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services and sought voluntary retirement in 2003.
• In 2005, the appellant was informed that the High Court had initiated a departmental enquiry against him.
• There were twelve charges levelled against the appellant in the chargesheet. It was alleged that the appellant, while posted in Agra, had awarded enhanced compensation which was multiple times more than the investments made by the purchasers of the acquired lands.
• The charge no. 12 pertained to an undue favour shown to a person by exorbitantly enhancing the compensation in his favour. It was therefore alleged that the appellant had committed a misconduct within the meaning of Rule-3 of U.P. Govt. Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.
• All the charges levelled against the appellant were denied by him.
• The Enquiry Officer submitted the report to the Full Court for consideration on the question of quantum of punishment.
• The Hon’ble High Court in its Full Court Meeting resolved to punish the appellant with curtailment of 90% of his pensionary benefits with immediate effect.
• Pursuant to the recommendation made by the Full Court of the High Court, the respondent passed an order sanctioning withholding of 90% from the pension of the appellant.
• The appellant challenged the legality of the order by filing a writ before the High Court. The Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the findings recorded in reference to the charges. The Hon’ble High Court considered the circumstances reduced the curtailment of pensionary benefits to the extent of 70% in place of 90%.
• The present appeal was directed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order passed by the High Court.

ISSUE RAISED

• Whether the Courts have full control over its judicial officers in the matter of disciplinary proceedings?
• Whether the appellant had misconducted himself while discharging his duties as a judicial officer, and can he be held guilty of any grave misconduct or having caused any loss?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The Enquiry against the appellant was initiated even though there was no complaint pending against the appellant. The ambit of judicial review is limited. As per the legal position that, the Courts cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority.
• The compensation was awarded by the appellant on the market value of the land. It was irrelevant to the price offered by the subsequent purchasers in respect of the acquired lands. In this regard, the Counsel relied upon UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow Vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow &Ors. [(1996) 3 SCC 124] etc. There was no specific charge against the appellant fortaking bribe or showing any undue favour to any person(s). Mere suspicioncannot be sufficient to prove that the appellant had acted because of immaterial consideration. In this regard, the Counsel, relied upon the decisions in the case of Krishna Prasad Verma (Dead) Thr Legal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2019) 10 SCC 640] etc.The appellant being not held guilty of any grave misconduct or having caused any loss, he could not have been awarded punishment for ‘grave misconduct’.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

• The High Court has full control over its judicial officers in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. In this case, after holding a regular disciplinary inquiry and following the due procedure of law, the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report before the High Court. And the same was placed before the Full Court.
• The appellant was given full and fair opportunity during the enquiry proceedings conducted against him and the decision was taken by the full Court of the High Court after considering the entire material on record. The punishment imposed was also proportionate to the guilt of the appellant. Taking the Court to the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it was submitted that the appellant had enhanced the compensation manifolds in order to extend undue favour to the subsequent purchasers, who had no right to receive the compensation. It was also submitted that the claimants who were the subsequent purchasers, had made a very meagre investments and purchased the right to receive compensation and right to sue in place of the original owners, which was totally prohibited under The Transfer of Property Act. InUnion of India vs. K.K. Dhawan [12 (1993) 2 SCC 56] it was held that the judicial officer, if acts negligently or recklessly or attempts to confer undue favour on a person or takes a decision which is actuated by corrupt motive, then he is not acting as a judge. Strict rules of evidence do not apply to the departmental inquiry.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• Itwas noted that maintenance of high standard of conduct and character of the judicial officers had always been a matter of great concern for theCourt. In C. Ravichandran Iyer Vs. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 457] the Court emphasised the need to maintain high standard of integrity, honesty and moral vigour. Further in Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 11 SCC 760] the court reiterated that the judicial officers must aspire and adhere to a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity. In the case, it was noted that there was a regular disciplinary proceedings conducted against the appellant after serving him the chargesheet and giving him full opportunity of hearing. Pertinently, the appellant had not made any allegation with regard to violation of principles of natural justice or contravention of any statutory rules during the course of enquiry proceedings. Therefore, in absence of any such allegations the impugned order passed by the High Court on the judicial side did not warrant any interference of this court.
• The Counsel for the Appellant relied upon various judgements to buttress his submission that mere suspicion cannot constitute misconduct, and that any probability of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material. It was also submitted that the disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against the judicial officers merely because the judgment or orders passed by them were wrong. The Court completely agreed with the submissions made by the Counsel for the Appellant. Nonetheless, in this case the appellant was found to have conducted the proceedings in the manner which had reflected on his reputation and integrity. There was enough evidence and material to show that the appellant had misconducted himself while discharging his duties as a judicial officer, and had passed the judicial orders in utter disregard of the specific provisions of law, to unduly favour the subsequent purchasers of the acquired lands who had no right to claim compensation, and that such orders were actuated by corrupt motive. The Court was of the opinion that, showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders was the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct. The extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a monetary consideration.

CONCLUSION

• If was said by the Court that “the public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water”. A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law. As often quoted, a judge, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion.
• In that view of the matter, the Court found no merit in the present appeal and the same was dismissed.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement