SADHNA CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 888 · Decided: 06-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
887
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 887
887
SADHNA CHAUDHARY
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2077 of 2020)
MARCH 06, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Service Law: Judicial service – Allegation against appellant
judicial officer that while posted as ADJ, she had decided the land
acquisition reference illegally and against all judicial norms and
propriety awarding to the claimants the amount of compensation
at an unduly high rate which led to inference that she was actuated
by extraneous considerations and thereby failed to maintain
absolute integrity and complete devotion of duty and committed
misconduct under U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956
– Enquiry Committee held that the charges were proved for, the
errors were apparent in both cases which were such shocking
blunders that they could not be attributed to mere misjudgment and
consequently were proved to be deliberate – Accordingly, order of
dismissal from service passed – Appellant unsuccessfully
challenged the order of dismissal before High Court – On appeal,
held:  It is the decision making process of delinquent officer and
not the end result of the judicial process which could be subjected
to disciplinary action – It is a matter of record that at the time
when the High Court was seized of this matter, writ petitions against
both of the appellant’s land acquisition judgments were dismissed
by its coordinate benches – High Court nevertheless, rightly
observed that dismissal of writ petitions against the appellant’s
orders did not serve as vindication or confirmation of her orders
– Indeed, as correctly noted by the High Court, the scope of
judicial review under Art.226 is limited – The standards to be met
prior to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction are very high,
and there needs to be gross substantive injustice through the
conclusion, glaring irregularities in procedure or the need to
resolve important questions of law for a writ court to overturn the
Reference Court’s order – Hence, dismissal of writ petition merely
signifies the failure to demonstrate any of these high standards,
in a particular case, and not the endorsement of the orders passed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
by a subordinate authority – However, the facts of the instant case
are distinct – This Court, in fact, entered into the merits of one of
the allegedly erroneous orders – Not only was the judgment
affirmed, but rather the compensation was further enhanced – It,
therefore, can no longer be stated that the appellant’s order was
wrong in conclusion – This fact is significant as it establishes that
the increase in compensation by the appellant was not abhorrent
– There is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration
being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on the part of
the appellant – Instead, the very basis of the finding of
‘misbehaviour’ is the end result itself, which as per the High Court
was so shocking that it gave rise to a natural suspicion as to the
integrity and honesty of the appellant – Although this might be right
in a vacuum, however, given how the end result itself has been
untouched by superior courts and instead in one of the two cases,
the compensation only increased, no such inference can be made
– Thus, case against the appellant not made out  – Order of
dismissal set aside – Constitution of India – Art.226 – Judicial
service.
Judicial Officers: Judicial officers must aspire and adhere
to a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity – Also mere
suspicion cannot constitute ‘misconduct’ – Any ‘probability’ of
misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary
material, even though the standard of proof would obviously not
be at par with that in a criminal trial.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a principle since the nineteenth century that
judges cannot be held responsible for the end result or the effect
of their decisions. This is necessary to both uphold the rule of
law, and insulate judicial reasoning from extraneous factors.  It
is courts, which uphold the law and ensure its enforcement. They
instil trust of the constitutional order in people, and ensure the
majesty of law and adherence to its principles. Courts hence
prevent people from resorting to their animalistic instincts, and
instead provide them with a gentler and more-civilised
alternative of resolving disputes. In getting people to obey their
dicta, Courts do not make use of guns 

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