REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATNA HIGH COURT versus PANDEY GAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 994 · Decided: 11-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 994 
REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATNA HIGH COURT 
v. 
PANDEY GAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4553 of 2012) 
MAY 11, 2012 
[D.K. JAIN AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Judiciary - Judicial Officer - Dismissed from service - On 
the allegation of misconduct - By Full Court of High Court on 
C recommendation by Standing Committee - Writ petition -
Allowed by Division Bench of High Court quashing dismissal 
order - On appeal, Held: Division Bench exceeded its 
jurisdiction by interfering with the decision of Full Court - The 
Court dealt with the matter as if it was exercising appellate 
D powers over the decision of subordinate court - There is 
nothing on record to suggest that the evaluation made by 
Standing C9mmittee and then by Full Court was so arbitrary, 
capricious or irrational so as to shock the conscience of the 
Division Bench to justify its interference - Dismissal is justified 
E - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 235 and 226. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226 - Judicial review - Of an order of punishment 
passed in departmental proceedings - Scope of - Held: Scope 
F of judicial review in such matters is very limited - Interference 
with such matters is permitted only when the proceedings are 
in violation of principles of natural justice or in violation of 
statutory regulations or when the decision is vitiated by 
consideration extraneous to the evidence or when the 
G decision, on the face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious. 
Article 235 - Control over Subordinate Courts - Scope of 
- It is constitutional mandate that every High Court ensures 
that the subordinate judiciary functions within its domain and 
H 
994 
REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATNA HIGH COURT v. 
995 
PANDEY GAJENDRA PRASAD 
administers justice according to law, uninfluenced by any 
A 
extraneous consideration - While it is imperative for the High 
Court to protect honest and upright judicial officer, it is equally 
necessary not to ignore or condone any dishonest deed of a 
judicial officer. 
Respondent No. 1 was a judicial officer, functioning 
B 
as Railway Judicial Magistrate at the relevant time. 
Sessions Judge conducted a preliminary inquiry against 
him on the basis of some reports alleging misconduct. 
Departmental proceedings were initiated. Four charges 
C 
were framed against him. Two of the charges which 
pertained to grant of bail by respondent No. 1 were 
proved and the Standing Committee recommended 
imposition 
of punishment 
of dismissal. 
The 
recommendation was approved by the Full Court of High 
Court and accepted by the Governor. By a Notification, 
D 
he was dismissed from service. Respondent No. 1 filed 
writ petition challenging the order of dismissal. Division 
Bench of the High Court allowed the petition quashing 
the dismissal order. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Article 235 of the Constitution of India not 
only vests total and absolute control over the 
subordinate courts in the High Courts but also enjoins a 
constitutional duty upon them to keep a constant vigil on 
the day to day functioning of these courts. There is no 
gainsaying that while it is imperative for the High Court 
E 
F 
to protect honest and upright judicial officers against 
motivated and concocted allegations, it is equally 
necessary for the High Court not to ignore or condone 
G 
any dishonest deed on the part of any judicial officer. It 
needs little emphasis that the subordinate judiciary is the 
kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration of 
justice. It is the trial judge, who comes in contact with the 
litigant during the day to day proceedings in the court 
H 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A and, therefore, a heavy responsibility lies on him to build 
a solemn unpolluted atmosphere in the dispensation of 
justice which is an essential and inevitable feature in a 
civilized democratic society. [Para 9] [1006-C-F] 
8.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 
8 749: 1995(4) Suppl. SCR 644; High Court of Judicature at 
Bombay vs.Shashikant S. Patil and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 416: 
1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 205 - referred to. 
1.2 ·it is the constitutional mandate that every High 
C Court must ensure that the subordinate judiciary 
functions within its domain and administers justice 
according to law, uninfluenced by any extraneous 
considerations. The members of the subordinate 
judiciary are not only under the control but also under the 
D car

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