The Supreme Court of India held that disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers are invalid unless authorised by the High Court Chief Justice or a committee constituted by him, while upholding reinstatement of a dismissed Uttarakhand civil judge and restricting Registrar General powers.
The Supreme Court has held that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer cannot be constitutionally sustained if they are not initiated with authorisation from the Chief Justice of the High Court, or from a committee constituted by him.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made these observations while upholding the Uttarakhand High Court’s order that reinstated a civil judge who had earlier been dismissed.
The civil judge, Deepali Sharma, had been removed from service on allegations that she physically abused and emotionally harassed a 17-year-old domestic help in her residence. After an inquiry, she was terminated from service. However, later, the Uttarakhand High Court expressed serious doubts about whether the accusations had been proved to the required standard.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Registrar General of a High Court lacks the power to start disciplinary proceedings suo motu against judicial officers. The Bench emphasised that the Constitution places the disciplinary control over such officers within the High Court’s collective authority, which includes the Chief Justice.
It held,
“The power under Article 235 of the Constitution, insofar as disciplinary control over judicial officers is concerned, has been expressly vested in the High Court and the High Court collectively, which necessarily shall comprise the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his companion judges. Unless the disciplinary action is approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court, or by a committee of judges constituted by him and delegated for all intents and purposes, such proceedings cannot be validly initiated. The Registrar General of the High Court has absolutely no authority, either in terms of the Constitution or the statutory rules governing the service conditions of judicial officers, to suo motu initiate disciplinary action against judicial officers,”
The Supreme Court noted that the disciplinary process in this case suffered from a fundamental jurisdictional flaw. Because the proper authorisation mechanism was not followed, the disciplinary action was treated as legally defective from the beginning.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reverses Kerala HC’s Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer
The Court held,
“What we find is that the inquiry proceedings in the present case, at the very inception, suffer from a jurisdictional infirmity which goes to the root of the matter … The very foundation of the disciplinary action against the (judicial officer) was non-existent,”
The Supreme Court also took note of the Uttarakhand High Court’s earlier findings (including the criticism of how the inquiry was conducted and how procedural steps were carried out).
In the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision dated January 6, it described the case as lacking evidentiary substance and framed the reasoning in harsh terms.
The High Court had stated that:
“It could also be termed as a mountain made out of a molehill,”
The Supreme Court reported that the Uttarakhand High Court had also criticised the conduct of the judicial officers involved, describing the manner in which the charges were presented as “shocking.”
A significant issue was how the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The Uttarakhand High Court had observed that the Registrar General took action after an anonymous complaint was sent to the High Court’s email account.
The Registrar General claimed he was asked telephonically by the then Chief Justice to inquire and issue an order of suspension. But the High Court had questioned why the complaint and supporting material were not placed before the Chief Justice.
It added,
“It is apparent that electronic mode of communication has been claimed to have been predominantly used, even to the extent of getting the concurrence of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice for issuing an order of suspension. If that be so, it was imperative that proof of the same ought to have been placed, more so, when the petitioner was questioning the authenticity of the orders claimed to have been passed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice,”
The High Court had further questioned the conduct of the action taken at the civil judge’s residence, pointing to the scale and manner of the raid. It had raised doubts about whether the approach was excessive or driven by ulterior motives.
Among other observations, it said that the manner and method raised questions and left it wondering whether it was “over-kill” or motivated.
The Uttarakhand High Court had ordered reinstatement, holding that Sharma should be treated as continuing in service from the date of her removal.
While the Supreme Court relied on the jurisdictional/procedural defect to invalidate the disciplinary action, it also indicated that it was inclined not to interfere with reinstatement especially since Sharma had also pleaded that she faced harassment by some senior judicial officers.
The Uttarakhand High Court’s administrative side had challenged the reinstatement order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on Monday.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan represented the Uttarakhand High Court (administrative side) and Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur appeared for judge Deepali Sharma.
Case Title: Uttarakhand High Court v. Deepali Sharma.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE