Supreme Court: In a matter pertaining to discharge of judicial duties by the appellant, who served as Sub-Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, the division bench of Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, JJ. set aside the orders for disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer, stating that the Kerala High Court did not take into account the relevant records regarding the case that was allegedly mishandled by him. This oversight rendered the initiation of disciplinary proceedings legally invalid.
Background:
The two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution were instituted by the fifteen individuals accused in a criminal case. 11 accused were found guilty and subsequently convicted on 15-11-2022. In their petition before the High Court, the convicted persons alleged that the appellant, as the Judicial Magistrate, without examining the Investigating Officer and without affording any opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witness, rendered the order of conviction.
The High Court dealt with the matter and ordered that the appellant be suspended by the Lakshadweep administration. Additionally, an inquiry was ordered to be conducted under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for the offence under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC.
The appellant submitted that despite the requisition of records from the Court of the CJM, (which was presided over by the appellant), was received only at a subsequent stage. Nevertheless, the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the matter and passed the impugned order. Further, his counsel was not afforded an opportunity to advance submission before the High Court as the counsel’s name was not reflected in the Cause List.
After taking note of the case status on the High Court’s official website, the Court said that the matter was initially adjourned on 14-12-2022, with the tentative next date of hearing set as 05-01-2023. However, the matter was listed much earlier on 23-12-2022, when the impugned order was pronounced. The Court mentioned that while the early listing of the case does not, per se, render the procedure inherently flawed, however, it highlighted that the order dated 1401202022 does not record the specific date to which the matter stood adjourned, nor does it reflect the date of next hearing.
After taking note of the impugned order, the Court noted that the Counsel of the appellant was heard before the matter was adjudicated. Thus, the Court rejected the contention regarding lack of opportunity to present submissions.
The Court also perused the affidavit filed by the Registrar General of the High Court in pursuant to the Court’s order dated 26-07-2024. The Court recorded that the required files were received in the High Court’s only on 26-12-2022, whereas the High Court judgment was rendered prior to such receipt, on 23-12-2022. Thus, the adjudication of the matter on 23-12-2022, in the absence of the complete records being reviewed, would render the said order dated 23-12-2022 legally invalid and is liable to be set aside.
The Court remarked that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant have been initiated on the basis of the said legally invalid order.
Further, the Bench noted that the proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC have since been dropped by the order dated 01-03-2024.
Thus, the Court viewed that the orders passed by the High Court on 23-12-2022 and 21-06-2023 in the original petition and the Review Petition deserve to be set aside and quashed.
The Court asked the Chief Justice of the High Court to issue required orders for early hearing of the two restored petitions.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
