The Rajasthan High Court overturned the compulsory retirement of Judge Amar Singh, emphasizing that mistakes without corrupt intent should not lead to disciplinary action. Singh granted bail in a delayed case, which faced criticism and initiated proceedings against him. The court found no evidence of misconduct, restoring Singh’s dignity and reinforcing judicial independence and fairness in such cases.
Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court recently overturned an order mandating the compulsory retirement of Additional District & Sessions Judge Amar Singh, ruling that “an order passed without any corrupt motive cannot become the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer.” The court emphasized that even judicial officers are prone to mistakes, which should not lead to punitive action if no ill intent is involved.
Judge Amar Singh faced disciplinary action for granting bail in 2010 to a murder accused, Satyanarayan, despite a pending transfer petition in the High Court. Initially, Judge Singh had dismissed the accused’s first bail plea as “not pressed.” Later, after a year of imprisonment and trial delays due to the complainant’s inaction, Singh granted the second bail plea.
However, the High Court later canceled the bail, criticized Judge Singh, and initiated disciplinary proceedings. Following an inquiry, he was compelled to retire in 2015. Singh challenged this order, maintaining that his decision to grant bail was motivated by judicial discretion, not misconduct.
A Division Bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Kuldeep Mathur quashed the compulsory retirement order on November 14, 2023, noting that
“there was no material produced in the departmental inquiry to connect the petitioner with the charges framed against him.”
The court highlighted:
- Well-Reasoned Bail Order: The second bail order was based on sound reasoning, considering the prolonged detention and trial delays caused by the complainant.
- Transfer Petition Not Actively Pursued: The complainant admitted during inquiry that he had not seriously pursued the transfer petition, which was eventually dismissed as infructuous after being listed for 21 hearings.
- Lack of Evidence: There was no substantial proof to establish misconduct by Judge Singh. The court found the decision to entertain the bail plea appropriate, despite the pending transfer petition.
The High Court underlined that judicial officers must strive to deliver justice without unnecessary delays, emphasizing that “justice delayed is justice denied.” The court added that mere procedural oversights, absent any corrupt motives, should not lead to harsh disciplinary actions.
The Bench warned against encouraging frivolous complaints against judicial officers, stating that such practices could hinder their ability to function independently. “Judicial officers would be in a state of dilemma in every case dealt with by them,” the court cautioned.
This ruling restores the professional dignity of Judge Singh and reinforces the principle that judicial officers, like any other individuals, are fallible.
“No one is infallible, and the Constitution itself provides a hierarchy of Courts and a provision for review under Article 137. To err is human,”
the Bench observed.
Representing Judge Singh, Advocate Anil Vyas successfully argued against the punitive measures. Senior Advocate Manoj Bhandari and Advocate Ankit Tater appeared for the State.
The case stands as a significant precedent in safeguarding judicial independence and ensuring fairness in disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers.
FOLLOW US FOR LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
