ABHAY JAIN versus THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANR

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 15-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
693
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 693
693
ABHAY JAIN
v.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND
ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2029 of 2022)
MARCH 15, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Judicial Service – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 –
rr.45 and 46 – Entitlement to protection u/Art.311 of the Constitution
– Bail order dated 27.04.2015 passed by Appellant-judicial officer
in favour an accused in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act
became genesis of action taken against him – Departmental enquiry
instituted against him u/r.16 of Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 for acts amounting
to misconduct and violation of rr.3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Conduct Rules), 1971 – Allegation leveled that appellant
passed the bail order with ulterior or oblique motives and for
extraneous considerations – Appellant submitted preliminary
objections to the allegations, which came to be rejected by the
Enquiry Judge – Meanwhile, Higher Judicial Committee, constituted
for deciding confirmation and discharge of Judicial Officers, upon
inspection of appellant’s records, decided not to recommend the
appellant for confirmation – Subsequently, a Full Court meeting
was convened wherein, based on recommendation submitted by the
Higher Judicial Committee, it was decided to discharge the appellant
– Appellant was thus discharged despite pendency of enquiry
proceedings against him – Discharge order was passed against the
appellant on ground that the Full Court found the appellant’s
services to be unsatisfactory during probation – Subsequently,
enquiry as well as disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
appellant were closed – Writ petition filed by appellant dismissed
by High Court – On appeal, held: There was no material to showcase
unsatisfactory performance of appellant in terms of requirement u/
rr.45 and 46 of the RJS Rules, 2010 – Moreover, appellant’s
discharge was not simpliciter, as claimed by the respondent – Non-
communication of ACRs to the appellant was proved to be arbitrary
and since respondent choose to hold enquiry into appellant’s alleged
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
misconduct, the termination of his service was by way of punishment
because it put a stigma on his competence and thus affected his
future career – In such a case, the appellant would be entitled to
protection of Art.311(2) of the Constitution – Moreover, adverse
comments in ACR for the year 2015 could not have been the basis
on which appellant was discharged from service – Appellant was
never granted opportunity to improve and there was no intimation
to him about his performance being unsatisfactory – Importantly,
no verifiable complaint was filed against the appellant that could
form the basis of disciplinary proceedings against him – Appellant
was competent to pass the bail order dated 27.04.2015 and
Respondent was not able to prove presence of any extraneous
consideration or ulterior motive on the part of the appellant – Also
neither the bail order dated 27.04.2015 was ever challenged by the
State before any Court of law, nor was any complaint received
against the appellant regarding the said bail order – This is not the
case where there were strong grounds to suspect the appellant’s
bona fides – Even if appellant’s act was considered to be negligent,
it cannot be treated as “misconduct” – The discharge order is
accordingly quashed – Keeping in view that the appellant had not
worked as judicial officer after he was discharged, he be reinstated
with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and
seniority, but with only 50% backwages – Constitution of India,
1950 – Art. 311.
Service Law – Judicial Service – Every judicial officer is likely
to commit mistake of some kind or the other in passing orders in the
initial stage of his service, which a mature judicial officer would
not do – However, if the orders are passed without there being any
corrupt motive, the same should be over-looked by the High Court
and proper guidance should be provided to him.
Service Law – Judicial Service – Merely because a wrong
order has been passed by the appellant-judicial officer or the action
taken by him could have been different, this does not warrant
initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer.
Service Law – Judicial service – Negligence vis-a-vis
misconduct – On facts, appellant-judicial officer, while passing the
bail order, ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.