Sakunjay Vyas
Published On: March 16, 2022 at 21:32 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran of Supreme Court overturned the High Court of Rajasthan bench order that dismissed the writ petition and discharged a Judicial Officer.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that bonafide negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct.
The Two Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran was hearing an appeal against the High Court of Rajasthan Bench order that dismissed the writ petition and discharged a Judicial Officer.
The Apex Court, while considering the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR), stated that till the year 2014, the appellant’s performance has been beyond exemplary. Further, only an advisory remark was given to the appellant, and no mention was made against the integrity of the officer.
That the report of 2015 stated that “integrity of the officer is doubtful. In my overall assessment, I rate the officer average”, but the Apex court was in agreement with the appellant that adverse comments in a report could not have been the basis on which the appellant was discharged from service.
The apex courts stated that there has been no infirmity in the appellant’s record and that the entire decision of discharging the appellant was based on a bail order which he was competent to give.
Further, The appellant was not informed that his performance was unsatisfactory, thereby denying him the opportunity to improve as a judge. That the Judicial officer in their early years might commit mistake but if they are not backed up by any corrupt motive the High Court can over-look it and at the same time provide them some guidance.
“if the orders are passed without there being any corrupt motive, the same should be overlooked by the High Court, and proper guidance should be provided to him. In the present case, admittedly, there was no intimation to appellant about his performance being unsatisfactory, and hence he was deprived of his opportunity to improve as a judicial officer.” the Court said.
The Apex Court further stated that the charges filed against the appellant are vague, and there have been no details whatsoever regarding the dismissal of the Judicial Officer. And that the appellant has been negligent in not taking into consideration the order of High Court, but mere bonafide negligence cannot be treated as misconduct.
“We hold that the appellant may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he did not carefully go through the case file and did not take notice of the order of the High Court which was on his file. This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct.” the Court said.
The Apex Court disagreed with the High Court on the statement that some oral complaint must have been made against the appellant since the High Court had itself recorded that there was no written complaint against the appellant.
As a result, the Apex Court quashed and set aside the order of the High Court of Rajasthan, stating that the appellant is entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and that he shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and seniority, but with the entitlement of only 50% of the back wages.