P.C. JOSHI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 08-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

P.C. JOSHI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
Judicial officer-Misconduct-Termination of service-Tests to be 
adopted-Held, initiation of disciplinary proceedings is not warranted merely C 
because the order is wrong or a different action could have been taken-Bona 
fide erroneous exercise of judicial powers is not misconduct at all. 
The appellant-Judicial Officer filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the termination of his services on the grounds that the charges D 
levelled against him do not constitute misconduct and that the findings 
recorded in the inquiry are based on conjectures and surmises and not on 
facts. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Ifin every case where an order of subordinate court is found 
to be faulty a disciplinary action were to be initiated, the confidence of the 
subordinate judiciary will be shaken and the officers will be in constant fear 
of writing a judgment so as not face a disciplinary enquiry and thus judicial 
officers cannot act independently or fearlessly. 1372-E, Fl 
1.2. Merely because the order is wrong or the action taken could have 
been different does not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings against 
the judicial officer. Bona fide and erroneous exercise of judicial powers cannot 
be treated as misconduct at all. 1372-F, 373-BI 
E 
F 
Union of India v. A.N. Saxena, 1199213 SCC 124; Union of India v. K.K. G 
Dhawan, 119931 2 SCC 56 and lshwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana, 119981 Supp, l SCR 396, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5 I 82 of 
2001. 
369 
H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.99 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M. W.P. No. 26921 of 1997. 
P.P. Rao, Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Jai Mangal Wadi and 
A.N. Baradiyar for the Appellant. 
B 
Y.P. Singh, Ajay K Agarwal, C. Siddharth, Mukesh Kumar Sharma and 
c 
D 
Ashok K. Srivastava for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted 
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad 
dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. Certain disciplinary 
proceedings were initiated against the appellant. After inquiry, he was held 
guilty of the charges and was ultimately terminated from service. A writ 
petition was filed by him in the High Court on the grounds, inter alia, that: 
I. The charges leveled against him do not constitute misconduct; and 
2. The findings recorded in the inquiry are based on conjectures and surmises 
and not on facts. 
The High Court found that there was material for the inquiry officer 
E to reach the conclusions adverse to the appellant and dismissed the writ 
petition. 
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated, inter alia, on complaints 
made by two Advocates, namely, V.K.Tiwari and Rajiv Kumar Singh. Nine 
charges were leveled against the appellant, seven of them pertain to orders 
F of bail granted in 19 cases. During his tenure of two years at Etah, the 
appellant is stated to have disposed of over 3,000 bail applications. Only 19 
bail orders out of these 3000 bail applications were the subject matter of 
charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer, however, found that in 7 cases, orders of 
bail were properly granted and the charges were not proved to that extent. In 
G four cases the charges are held to be partly proved. In one case, the appellant 
himself had recalled the order of bail after about 1-1/2 months of the grant 
of bail on an application made by the complainant on the ground that the bail 
was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. In two other cases, according 
to the Enquiry Officer, bail ought to have been granted on the very first 
application, but it was granted on the second application. The Enquiry Officer 
H took note of each one of the cases before him and re-examined whether bail 
~-
.. 
• 
P.C . .IOSHf.v. STATEOFU.P. [RAJENDRABABU,.J.] 
371 
should have been granted in each one of those cases or not. The parties A 
concerned had not made any complaint in any one of the cases. On examination 
of each one of the charges in relation to grant of bail, the Enquiry Officer 
proceeded to consider the cases on merits. He found that there used to be a 
pattern in rejecting the first bail application and thereafter even i

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