NIRMALA J. JHALA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 18-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2013) 5 S.C.R. 200 
NIRMALA J. JHALA 
V. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2005) 
B 
MARCH 18, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Judicial service - Complaint against judicial officer - By the 
accused whose case she was trying -Alleging demand of illegal 
C gratification - Enquiry Officer finding her guilty- High Court on 
administrative side recommended imposition of punishment of 
compulsory retirement to the State Government-Accordingly the 
delinquent officer given compulsory retirement - Challenged -
Division Bench of High Court rejected the challenge - On appeal, 
D held: Imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement on the 
delinquent officer is not correct - Complainant was disbelieved 
by the Enquiry Officer as well as the High Court on various issues 
- The court wrongly put the burden to prove those negative 
circumstances on the delinquent officer, while the onus was on 
E the department to prove the charges - In the facts of the case it 
eould be said that the complainant had ill-wilr'and motive to make 
allegations against the delinquent officer - Hence the order of 
punishment is set aside and the delinquent officer is honourably 
exonerated of all the charges - Cost imposed on the State to the 
F tune of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the delinquent officer- Evidence 
- Burden to prove. 
Judiciary - Duty of higher judiciary to protect subordinate 
judiciary - Held: For functioning of democracy, and for an 
independent judiciary to dispense justice without fear and favour, 
G High Court need to protect the honest judicial officers. 
Service Law: 
Departmental Inquiry - Quasi Criminal/Quasi judicial in 
nature - Standard of proof- Held in such cases though doctrine 
of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply, but principle 
H 
200 
NIRMALA J. JHALA v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 201 
of probabilities would apply. 
A 
Departmental Inquiry - Evidence !material relied on in 
preliminary inquiry - Also relied on in regular inquiry - Held: In 
absence of information in the charge-sheet that evidence/ 
material in preliminary inquiry would be relied on, it was not 
permissible to rely on the same in regular inquiry - Reliance 
B 
thereon is violative of principles of natural justice- Natural Justice. 
Natural Justice - Applicability of - Held: Natural justice is 
an inbuilt and inseparable ingredient of fairness and 
reasonableness - It should be strictly adheared to whenever as 
a result of an order, civil consequences follow- In certain factual C 
circumstances, even non-observance of the rule would itself result 
in prejudice. 
Judicial Review - Scope of - Held: It is circumscribed and 
confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, resulting in 
manifest misca!Tiage of justice or violation of principles of natural 
D 
justice - However, the Court should exercise its discretion with 
great caution keeping in mind the larger public interest. 
The appellant-delinquent officer, while working as Chief 
Judicial Magistrate, when was trying CBI case of an accused 
E 
for the offence of misappropriation and embezzlement of 
public money. The accused filed complaint with CBI against 
F 
the appellant alleging that she had demanded a sum of 
Rs.20,000/- on 17 .8.1993 as illegal gratification through his 
advocate 'G', to pass order in his favour. The complaint was 
referred to High Court. Pursuant thereto, preliminary enquiry 
was conducted wherein the statements of the-complainant 
and his advocate 'G' were recorded. The appellant was 
suspended and regular enquiry was directed. Charge-sheet 
contained 12 charges against the appellant, the main charge 
being the demand of illegal, gratification. Enquiry Officer G 
found the appellant guilty of first charge and partially guilty 
of the second charge. The Enquiry Report was examined by 
. High Court on administrative side, and by a resolution 
recommended to the State, imposition of punishment of 
Compulsory retirement on the appellant. The State 
H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A accordingly issued Notification giving compulsory 
Retirement to the appellant. The appellant challenged the 
order, and the same was rejected by the Division Bench of 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal 
trial, and in spite of the fact that the same are quasi-judicial 
and quasi-criminal, doctrine of proof beyond re

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