Judge cannot be dismissed from service for mere failure to cite legal provision while granting bail: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday overturned the dismissal of a senior Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, ruling that the disciplinary action against the judge based on a few bail orders was unjustified and lacked evidence of corruption, bias or misconduct [Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.]. .A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan of the top court held that disciplinary action cannot rest only on judicial orders passed by such judge in bail matters, unless there is evidence of corruption, extraneous considerations or lack of good faith.Further, mere failure by the judge to cite a relevant statutory provision while granting bail will not by itself amount to misconduct warranting his removal from service, the Supreme Court underscored.“A fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary, as much as an independent judiciary itself is the foundation on which rule of law rests. A judicial Officer is tasked with the onerous duty of deciding cases. Invariably one party to the case would lose and go back unhappy. Disgruntled elements amongst them, wanting to settle scores may raise frivolous allegations."Thus, the Court allowed the appeal filed by Nirbhay Singh Suliya, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge whose removal from service had been upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Court reinstated him with full back wages along with six percent interest and all related service benefits The Court also highlighted the challenging working conditions faced by trial judges, noting that they handle a heavy workload, often with many cases listed in a single day, and that most judicial officers put in their best efforts while performing their duties.It also voiced concern over the use of complaints against judges as a tool to exert pressure.“Instances have also emerged from different parts of the country, where not just disgruntled parties but some mischievous elements in the Bar have also resorted to intimidatory tactics against the members of the trial Judiciary by engineering false and anonymous complaints.”.Suliya joined the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service in 1987 and was promoted to Additional District Judge in 2003. The disciplinary proceedings against him stemmed from a complaint sent to the Chief Justice of the High Court while he was posted at Khargone in 2011–12. The complaint alleged that bail was being granted in cases under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act through corrupt means. .A fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary.Supreme Court.Two charges were framed against Suliya after a preliminary inquiry. The first concerned granting bail in four cases involving the seizure of over 50 bulk litres of liquor, allegedly without following Section 59A of the Excise Act, which sets “twin conditions” for bail. The twin conditions require the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences. The second charge involved a bail order in a serious criminal case and was ultimately found not proved.The inquiry officer concluded that the judge had applied double standards by granting bail in some cases while rejecting it in others. Based on this report, the State government removed him from service in 2014, and both his appeal and writ petition against the same were dismissed by the High Court.This led to the plea before the apex court. .The Supreme Court noted that the complaint against the judge largely focused on the conduct of a court stenographer and did not point to any specific bail orders issued by the judge.Further, neither the complainant nor the stenographer was questioned during the inquiry, the apex court observed. The departmental witness, who was examined, did not support the charges and the public prosecutor involved in all the bail matters testified that the orders were legally sound and had not been challenged by the State. The Court held that merely failing to explicitly cite a statutory provision does not, on its own, amount to misconduct.Thus, it concluded that the findings of the departmental inquiry were perverse, meaning they were conclusions that no reasonable person could have drawn from the material on record.Hence, it directed the reinstatement of the judge with full back wages and interest. The same should be released to Suliya within eight weeks, the Bench made it clear..While examining the wider issues raised by the case, the Court also made detailed observations on the position and vulnerability of trial court judges within the justice systemIn this regard, the Supreme Court stressed upon the role of the High Court in such situations.“When false allegations fly thick and fast, the judicial officers cannot react. Here is where the High Court which is vested with the supervisory control has to exercise great caution and circumspection.” It further cautioned against branding judges on inadequate material.“To dunk an officer into the puddle of ‘doubtful integrity’ it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material.”The principles governing disciplinary action against judicial officers should be applied consistently, the Court said.It further ordered that the judgment be circulated to all High Courts. .[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.