RAMESH CHANDER SINGH versus HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 26-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMESH CHANDER SINGH 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AND ANR 
FEBRUARY 26, 2007 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ!, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A AND D.K. 
JAIN, JJ.) 
""--· 
UP. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956-Rule 3-Misconduct 
c by Addi. District & Sessions Judge in grant of bail-Two of three accused 
in a case granted bail by High Court-Third one, continuing in custody after 
three of his bail applications were rejected, granted bail on fourth 
application-On a complainant that Judge had accepted illegal gratification 
-
for grant of bail, enquiry conducted by High Court, though finding no 
D 
evidence thereof, concluded that grant of bail was in utter disregard of 
judicial norms-Full Court imposing major punishment of withholding two 
annual increments-On a writ petition of Judge against it, High Court 
substituting that punishment with reduction in rank to next below-
.._ 
Correctness of-Judge was well within his right to grant bail in discharge 
t 
of his judicial functions, especially as there was no statutory bar-Disciplinary 
E proceedings by High Court for passing such an order would adversely affect 
morale of subordinate judiciary-It was more so as the proceedings were 
based solely on a complaint, contents of which were not believed by High 
Court to be true, and there were no strong grounds suspecting judge's bona 
fides or order itself being actuated by malice, bias or illegality-Though in 
F previous bail applications many of contentions of accused were considered, 
but he had right to file bail application at any stage as an under-trial 
prisoner, and fact that two other accused had already been enlarged on bail 
).._., 
was a valid reason for granting bail to him, more so when he had been in 
jail for one year and charge-sheet had already been filed-It was noteworthy 
G 
that neither State nor complainant appealed against grant of bail, and State 
had not alleged he was likely to abuse it or abscond-Cognizance of fact 
that Magistrate who recorded dying declaration was once tenant of 
complainant was not totally unwarranted and a superfluous reasoning, and 
" -
I 
fact that case was of daylight murder wherein two persons died was not 
adequate to reject bail-Punishment imposed found to be draconian and 
H unjust especially as confidential reports of the Judge indicated that his 
198 
RAMESH CHANDER SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
199 
integrity and honesty had never been doubted-Matter remitted to Full A 
Court to consider afresh question of imposition punishment. 
The appellant joined the Provincial Civil Service (Judicial). He was 
promoted to the Higher Judicial Service and posted as Addi. District & 
Sessions Judge. A crime registered by the Police Station was allotted to his 
court for trial and disposal. Two of the three accused in that case had been B 
granted bail by High Court. However, one of them continued to be in custody, 
his three applications for bail having been rejected. On his fourth bail 
application, the appellant granted bail to him on the ground that (i) the charge 
-
_x 
sheet had been filed by the police (ii) his father was dangerously ill (iii) he 
was a student (iv) he had no previous conviction or involvement in any criminal c 
case (v) the Tehsildar who recorded the dying declaration of deceased was a 
close acquaintance of the deceased (vi) there was no likelihood of his 
absconding or interfering with the trial of the case, influencing the witnesses 
.. 
or committing any fresh offence . 
However, when this bail application had come up for hearing, the D 
appellant noticed that complainant had filed an application before the Sessions 
Judge for its transfer to some other court. But as the government counsel 
stated that he had full faith in the court and the counsel for complainant did 
> 
not raise any objection, and as no stay order was produced, appellant proceeded 
with the hearing of the case. 
E 
Complainant sent a complaint to the High Court alleging that the 
appellant had accepted illegal gratification for granting bail. As a Prima facie 
case was found against the appellant for dereliction of duty and judicial 
dishonesty, the Administrative Committee initiated departmental enquiry. A 
charge sheet was produced against appellant alleging that (i) he granted bail F 
for extraneous consideration with oblique motives on insufficient grounds (ii) 
....-....: 
he was guilty of misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and 
devotion to duty within the mean

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