The Supreme Court on Wednesday remarked that a judicial officer was not expected to file requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to uncover the reasons for his suspension..A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while declining to interfere with the suspension of Rajaram Bhartiya, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Panna in Madhya Pradesh.“The petitioner is said to have submitted applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to uncover the reason for his suspension. Adopting such a recourse is completely unheard of and is not expected from an officer with his experience,” the Court said..The Bench further observed that Bhartiya ought to have submitted a representation to the competent authority against the suspension order, which would have enabled the High Court “either to convey the reason of suspension and or to formally initiate the disciplinary proceedings as contemplated in the suspension order itself.”.The Court was hearing a petition filed by Bhartiya challenging the November 19 order placing him under suspension.The suspension order recorded that he was placed under suspension with immediate effect and that his headquarters were changed “to prevent the possibility of tampering with the evidence and witnesses and to ensure a free and fair enquiry.”Bhartiya is a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services who joined service as a Civil Judge Class II in 1994 and was promoted as an Additional District Judge in 2009. He was then elevated as a Principal District Judge in 2022.He would have retired on November 30 but Supreme Court's earlier order directing the Madhya Pradesh government to enhance the retirement age of judicial officers to at least 61 years means he would now retire in November 2026. .While declining to stay the suspension, the top court on Wednesday granted liberty to Bhartiya to submit a comprehensive representation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking recall of the suspension or any other relief as per the rules.The High Court was directed to take an appropriate decision on the representation as early as possible, but not later than four weeks..During the hearing, the counsel for Bhartiya submitted that a judicial order cannot be the basis for suspension. It was argued that he could have been transferred instead. The plea stated that Bhartiya's a judicial order - setting aside a penalty imposed by the Panna Collector in an illegal mining case - was the alleged reason behind his suspension.CJI Kant questioned why the judge had passed such order before his retirement.“Did he issue notice? What if he [judge] makes a palpable incorrect order? Why before retirement he passed this? This is becoming a growing trend now when these kinds of orders are passed before retirement. He started hitting sixers just a fortnight away from retirement," the Court remarked..[Read Live exchange].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
