AU. KURESHI versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 27-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-1 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 879 
AU. KURESHI 
V. 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 472 of 2009) 
JANUARY 27, 2009 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, C.J. AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 
Administrative Law: 
A 
B 
Bias -
Disciplinary Committee of High Court c 
recommending dismissal of a Judicial Officer for misconduct 
- Officer dismissed by State Government - Dismissal order 
challenged by Judicial Officer before High Court on judicial 
side - Bench hearing the petition comprising one of the 
members of Disciplinary Committee as Judge - Petition 
0 
dismissed - HELD: The decision made by Disciplinary 
Committee was a vital component of the process by which 
High Court made recommendation to State Government for 
dismissal of the Judicial Officer - It is, therefore, not proper 
for a member of the said. Disciplinary Committee to decide 
on a challenge against the same dismissal order while acting 
E 
in a purely judicial capacity - Order of the High Court set 
aside and case remitted to it for decision afresh in accordance 
with law - Maxim - ·nemo debet esse judex in propria sua 
causa' - Applicability of 
Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 
417, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1985) 4 sec 417 
relied on 
para 9 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
472 of 2009. 
879 
F 
G 
H 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment/Order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the 
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Ahmedabad in Special 
Civil Appln. No. 6164/2002. 
Sanjeev Kumar and Venkateswara Rao Anumolu for the 
8 
Appellant. 
c 
Sunil Kumar Jain and Aneesh Mittal for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned 
order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dated July 
0 
25, 2006 which was passed in Special Civil Application No. 
6164 of 2002, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said 
application. 
FACTS: 
E 
3. The appellant was a Judicial Officer who joined the 
Gujarat Judicial Service in 1991 and was posted as Civil 
Judge (Junior Division) at the District Court, Bharuch. The High 
Court of Gujarat (respondent) received a complaint wherein it 
was alleged that a case bearing Criminal Case No. 2059/89 
F 
under the Gambling Act was listed for hearing in the appellant's 
Court and that the appellant had acquitted the accused and 
also returned the money seized from the accused from the 
scene of occurrence. On the basis of this complaint the 
respondent issued a charge-sheet to the appellant and the 
G appellant submitted his reply. A departmental inquiry was 
initiated against the appellant and the concerned Inquiry officer 
submitted his report to the High Court of Gujarat stating that 
the charges levelled against the appellant had been proved. On 
the basis of this report, a show-cause notice was issued to the 
H appellant. The appellant filed his reply to this show-cause notice. 
+ 
A.U. KURESHI v. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
881 
Dissatisfied with the appellant's reply, the High Court decided 
A 
that it would be appropriate to dismiss the appellant from 
service. By letter dated October 25, 2001, the High Court of 
Gujarat recommended to the State Government that the 
appellant be dismissed from service and accordingly an order 
was passed. 
B 
4. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed Special Civil 
Application No. 6164 of 2002 before the High Court of Gujarat 
at Ahmedabad, which has been dismissed by the impugned 
order. 
5. Hence, this appeal by grant of special leave. 
c 
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted 
before us that one of the members of the Disciplinary 
Committee of the High Court of Gujarat which dealt with the 
D 
appellant's appeal was one of the judges on the bench which 
heard Special Civil Application No. 6164 of 2002 on the judicial 
side. This fact has not been contested by the learned counsel 
appearing for the respondents. 
7. In view of this, it is our opinion that the learned judge 
E 
who was part of the Disciplinary Committee which suggested 
the appellant's dismissal should not have later heard the matter 
on the judicial side. In the present case, the Disciplinary 
Committee had suggested the appellant's dismissal on the 
basis of which the High Court of Gujarat made the subsequent 
F 
recommendation to the State government. 
8. The decision made by the Disciplinary Committee was 
a vital component of the process by which the High 

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