R.C. SOOD versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 13-05-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R.C. SOOD 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN 
MAY 13, 1998 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Departmental Enquiry-Complaint against a member of the State Higher 
C Judicial Service-Some of the complaints made by persons having grudge 
against the officer when he had acted on administrative side-Allegations 
were vague and general-Held, such complaints did not merit serious 
consideration-Initiation of disciplinary proceedings also not proper. 
Departmental Enquiry-Judicial Review-Grounds for-High Court, 
D acting on the administrative side, initiating proceedings against a member 
of the State Higher Judicial Service-Writ petition challenging the initiation 
of departmental enquiry filed before Supreme Court-Held, the initiation of 
disciplinary proceedings amounted to victimisation and therefore quashed-
Judiciary-Awarding of costs-When justified-Administrative Law-
E Colourable exercise of power-Discussed 
Preliminary enquiry preceding the departmental enquiry-Purpose a/-
Held, normally enquiry committees are set up to ascertain facts-However, 
on facts of the case, found that the committee was set up for collecting a 
menageries of witnesses who had a grudge against the petitioner-Such 
p 
approach criticised by this Court-Report of enquiry committed held to be 
biased-Administrative Law-Bias. 
Constitution of India: 
Articles 235 and 227-Rules of the High Court of Judicature for 
Rajasthan, 1952, Chapter 111, Rules J5(d) to (g) and 32(2)-Superintendence 
G of High Court over subordinate courts-Procedure for exercising control-
Reference of Full Court-When not necessary-Complaint against a judicial 
officer-Chief Justice got a preliminary enquiry conducted-Genuineness of 
. the complaint not established-Thereafter it was decided not. to proceed 
against the petitioner-Held, Chief Justice was competent under R. 32(2) to 
H take decision at his level-Reference to Full Court could have been necessary 
352 
.. _
' 
-
1 
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN 
353 
under R. l 5(d) to (g) only if the Chief Justice was of the view that disciplinary A 
action was called for-Reopening of the case subsequently by reference to 
Full Court was not justified-More so when the complaint was not supported 
by an affidavit as required by Chief Justice's order-However, the question 
'whether for good or sufficient reasons the Full Court can ever overrule or 
recall an eariier decision of the Chief Justice' kept open Superintendence of B 
High Court over subordinate courts-Procedure for such contra/-
Administrative directions given by the Chief Justice directing that no 
cognizance of a complaint against a judicial officer be taken unless it is duly 
supported by an affidavit-Full Court took cognizance of the Complaint 
ignoring such direction of the Chief Justice-Held, there was no reason why 
such order of the Chief Justice should have been ignored-Service law-- C 
Departmental Enquiry Article 32-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to enforce 
fundamental rights of its citizen-Unfair exercise of Disciplinary power 
exercised by High Court on the administrative side against a member of State 
Higher Judicial Service-Held : initiation of proceedings was not bona-
fide-Proceedings quashed exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 32-
Service Law-Departmental Enquiry. 
D 
Judiciary-Judicial forum-High Court-Acting on its administrative 
side-Held, fairness and objectivity expected from it even if acting° on its 
administrative side-High Court held to be acted in the manner which could 
only be termed as arbitrary and unwarranted. 
The petitioner had joined the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and 
w.e.f. 01.07.1989 to 01.02.1994, the petitionet·was posted as Registrar of 
High Court. Departmental proceedings were initiated on the ground of a 
mistake in inviting applications to fill up the vacancies in the Higher Judicial 
Service by way of direct recruitment, there being an error in the publication 
E 
of advertisement in mentioning the relevant cut off date as 01.01.1995 p 
instead ofOl.01.1994. The Committee of two Judges suggested the matter 
be placed before the Chief Justice for taking suitable action who in turn 
directed the matter be put up before the Full Court by circulation. The two 
judges Committee, constituted by the Full Court on 21.10.1994 resolved that 
a departmental enquiry be initiated against the petitioner and he should be 
placed under suspension. On 21.10.1994, the H

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