The Allahabad High Court upheld disciplinary action against a clerk accused of misplacing a judicial file, stressing that such misconduct threatens justice, stating the loss of any judicial record is serious and “required to be handled with iron rod.”
The Allahabad High Court upheld disciplinary action taken against a court clerk accused of misplacing a judicial file, noting that such allegations are grave and can adversely affect the administration of justice.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta dismissed a writ petition filed by the clerk from the Rampur district judiciary, challenging orders that withheld four annual increments with cumulative effect after disciplinary proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court said in its order,
“Misplacement or loss of a judicial file from the record of the judiciary is very serious allegation, which impacts the administration of justice and the same is required to be handled with iron rod,”
ALSO READ: Tragic Mystery || Law Clerk’s Body Discovered Near Technician Studio
The matter began when a file concerning a complaint case could not be traced from the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Rampur. An inquiry was initiated after repeated attempts to locate the record failed, even though the staff were given multiple opportunities.
At the relevant time, the petitioner served as the dealing clerk. He was held responsible for the missing file and was found guilty of misconduct under the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.
After the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard, the disciplinary authority ordered withholding four increments with cumulative effect.
His departmental appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority, following which he approached the High Court.
Challenging the punishment, the petitioner argued that the office had not followed the work allocation process strictly. He further contended that responsibility for the missing file had not been conclusively established.
According to him, the enquiry officer had reached a finding against him without properly identifying the actual person accountable for the loss of the record.
The counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that courts should not examine the merits of the disciplinary case while exercising judicial review. It was also argued that the High Court should not interfere with the punishment order because the disciplinary proceedings followed proper procedure.
At the outset, the High Court observed that there was no allegation that the petitioner was denied a hearing opportunity. It also noted that no arguments were advanced alleging that the punishment was disproportionate to the petitioner’s alleged misconduct.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that judicial review in service matters is narrowly limited. It concluded that there was no illegality in the orders passed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority and dismissed the petition.