- In Muzaffar Hussain vs State of UP the Hon’ble SC has upheld the disciplinary action taken against a Judicial Officer in Uttar Pradesh for passing orders to unduly favour certain parties.
- The Court observed that showing undue favour to a party under the guise of judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct.
- The charge in this case was that an officer named Muzaffar Hussain, while being the Additional District Judge at Agra during 2001 to 2003 had exorbitantly increased the compensation in a batch of land acquisition matters, in violation of the settled principles in order to benefit subsequent purchasers.
- In 2005, the Allahabad HC initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for the alleged misconduct and found the charges to be true. The State of Uttar Pradesh curtailed his pensionary benefits by 90% as punishment. The Officer challenged the punishment by filing a writ petition. The HC however, refused to interfere with the findings, but reduced the punishment to curtailment of pensionary benefits by 70%. The Officer then approached the Apex Court to challenge the verdict.
- Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice AM Bhattacharjee and ors (1995) SCC, the Court observed that maintenance of high standards of conduct and character of judicial officers has always been a matter of great concern for the Apex Court.
- In Sadhna Chaudhary vs State of UP (2020) SCC the Court reiterated that the judicial officers must adhere to a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity.
- Reference was also made to the case of Union of India vs KK Dhawan wherein it was held that the disciplinary action can be taken against judicial or quasi-judicial powers in the following circumstances:
- Where the officer has acted in a manner that would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith;
- If there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
- If he acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant;
- If he has acted negligently, or has omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of his statutory powers.
- If he acted in order to unduly favour a party;
- If he has acted with a corrupt motive, no matter how small the bribe might be.
- Referring to the case of High Court of Judicature At Bombay vs Shashikant S Patil and anr (2000) SCC the Court observed that interference with a departmental inquiry is allowed only when the proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or in contravention of the statutory regulations regulating such proceedings or if the decision is found to be arbitrary or capricious. The Court cannot act as an appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry it it has been conducted fairly and properly.
- The Apex Court observed that there was enough evidence on record to show that the appellant had misconducted himself while discharging duties as a judicial officer and had passed the judicial orders in utter disregard of the provisions of the law, to unduly favour the subsequent purchasers of the acquired lands, who did not have the right to claim the compensation, more particularly when section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act specifically states that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred. The Court also observed that these orders were influenced by corrupt motives.
- The appeal was, thus, dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
