TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application to the facts of the present case. 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 had been dismissed by its coordinate benches. The High Court has, 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 Article 226 is limited - the 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 by a subordinate authority. 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 - petition allowed. - Civil Appeal No. 2077 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nced rate of ₹ 265/- per sq. yard as against ₹ 74.40 determined by the S.L.A.O. for land area 276 Bighas 12 Biswas and 15 Biswansi, unduly awarded an additional amount of ₹ 47,73,39,903.86 which leads to an inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of UP Govt. Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Charge No. 2 - That you on 7.11.2003 posted as Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, while deciding Land Acquisition Reference No. 91 of 2001 Umesh Chandra v. State of UP and 66 other cases enhanced the rate of compensation from ₹ 100/- per square yard determined by the S.L.A.O. to ₹ 160/- per square yard, illegally disregarding the exemplars filed by the Defendants including your own award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1 of 1992, Surendra v. State of UP decided on 24.03.1993, for land acquired in the same year, in the same area and under the same scheme in order to award an additional amount of ₹ 28,53,24,896.80 to the claimants for land area 483 Bighas, 14 Biswas and 8 Bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legally disregarded exemplars filed by the State-Respondents, particularly, an award of ₹ 108/sq yd passed only a few months ago by her in a similar case. Notwithstanding such evidence, the Appellant was said to have increased the compensation from ₹ 100/sq yd to ₹ 160/sq yd, in contravention of all judicial norms. 9. The Bench opined that it was settled law that although the final decision made by a judicial officer was of no relevance for purposes of disciplinary enquiry, however, the legality and correctness of the decision-making process as well as the conduct of the officers in discharge of their duties ought to be considered. The High Court accordingly endorsed the Respondent's plea that the decision-making process of the Appellant while deciding the aforementioned two land acquisition references was bereft of judicial propriety, settled judicial norms and was actuated by extraneous considerations. Additionally, the High Court placed emphasis on the windfall gain made available to the claimants as being evidence of the deliberate lapses made by the Appellant in response to extraneous considerations, and not merely errors of judgment. This, the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the deviation from the Appellant's very own judgment rendered five months ago, was a result of the substantial development and increase in prices which took place in the interregnum. This was duly backed up by documentary evidence produced by the vigilant claimants, and hence compensation was enhanced by a factor of 60% to ₹ 160/sq yd. Glaringly, this very compensation, which was found as being a shocking blunder by the enquiry committee, was further enhanced by the Apex Court in an SLP filed by some other claimants to ₹ 297/sq yd., and appeals filed by the Local Development Authority had been dismissed. Thus, the very basis of the inference of misconduct was claimed as not having survived. 14. Reiterating the position of law expounded by the High Court, the Appellant argued that it was the conduct of a judicial officer in discharge of her duties, and not the legality/correctness of her decision, could be subjected to disciplinary action. Given the detailed reasons in both references by the Appellant, there was no 'reckless discharge of duties' either. Even if there were to be such omission in duty, in the absence of any charge of illegal gratifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rary manner, which was bereft of all judicial propriety. This was pleaded to undoubtedly amount to 'gravest misconduct', justifying the dismissal of services for preserving public trust in the judiciary. ANALYSIS 18. Undoubtedly, the High Court is correct in its observation of the applicable law. Indeed, the end result of the judicial process does not matter, and what matters is only the decision-making process employed by the delinquent officer. Clearly, it is a principle since the nineteenth century that judges cannot be held responsible for the end result or the effect of their decisions. [Land Acquisition Reference No. 91 of 2001, delivered on 07.11.2003.] This is necessary to both uphold the Rule of law, and insulate judicial reasoning from extraneous factors. 19. Even furthermore, there are no two ways with the proposition that Judges, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. Judicial officers do discharge a very sensitive and important constitutional role. They not only keep in check excesses of the executive, safeguard citizens' rights and maintain law and order. Instead, they support the very framework of civilised society. It is courts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es are also public servants. A Judge should always remember that he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not only by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others should be incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges. 8. Judges must remember that they are not merely employees but hold high public office. In R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P. [R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P., (2012) 8 SCC 58 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 343 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri.) 782 : (2012) 2 SCC (L S) 469], this Court held that the standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than that of an ordinary person. The following observations of this Court are relevant: (SCC p. 70, para 29) 29. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and the Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable without hesitation to tarnish the image of the judiciary, often for mere pennies or even cheap momentary popularity. Sometimes a few disgruntled members of the Bar also join hands with them, and officers of the subordinate judiciary are usually the easiest target. It is, therefore, the duty of High Courts to extend their protective umbrella and ensure that upright and straightforward judicial officers are not subjected to unmerited onslaught. 23. It is evident in the case in hand that the High Court itself was cognizant of this settled proposition of law. Learned senior Counsel for the Appellant also finds no fault with these principles, and instead only seeks for their application to the facts of the present case. 24. 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 had been dismissed by its coordinate benches. The High Court has, 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 judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case, a perusal of the chargesheet shows that no such allegation of the process having been vitiated has been made against the Appellant. 28. 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, the entire case against the Appellant collapses like a house of cards. CONCLUSION 29. In light of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the Appellant is allowed. The order of dismissal dated 17.01.2006 passed by Respondent No. 1 is set-aside, and the Appellant's prayers for reinstatement with consequential benefits including retiral benefits, is accepte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
