http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYTHROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHIRISHKUMAR RANGRAO PATIL & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K.RAMASWAMY, J.      This is  an appeal by certificate granted by the Bombay High Court,  Nagpur Bench  on July 11, 1996 in writ Petition No. 3095  of 1995  certifying that  it is a fit case to file appeal against  the judgment dated April 26,  1996 passed by that Division Bench.      The admitted  facts are  that the  first respondent was working as  a Probationer  Civil Judge,  Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate,  First Classed  at Pathri  in  District Parbani, Maharashtra  between December 12, 1990 and March 5, 1991.   He was  charged with  the  imputation  that  he  had demanded illegal  gratification from  an Advocate,  Ashok S. Kharkar of  the District  Bar for  deciding in his favour an injunction application  filed by the plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 150/90 titled  Uttam Depale  V/s.   Sardarkhan Hasankhan and thereby he  indulged in  corrupt practice  which amounted to gross misconduct.  It was  further alleged that did not pass orders in  the said injunction application manipulated there judicial records  by getting  the roznama  written through a court clerk  showing that  the  matter  was  fixed  on  five occasions after   the  arguments  were concluded with a view to achieve  his ulterior  motive,   viz. , demand of illegal gratification and,  thereby, committed gross misconduct.  He was   also charged  with other  allegations details of which are not material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Yet another  charge against  him was      that after hearing the arguments  in RCS NO. 138/90 titled Arjun V/s. Gangubai, he did  not pass orders for nearly seven months and left the charge of the court without passing the final orders.      After giving  reasonable opportunity to the respondent- officer,   the Enquiry  officer held  that  the    aforesaid charge Nos.  1 and 2 and part of charge No.3 were proved but the other  part of  charge No.3 and charges 4 and 5 were not proved.   On receipt of the enquiry report and consideration thereof,   on July 29,  1983,  show  cause notice was issued to the  delinquent officer together with copy of the enquiry report,   calling upon  him to show cause as to why findings could not be accepted and penalty of dismissal imposed.   On submission of  his representation  in response  to the  said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

show cause notice, on  18th  September,  1993, the Committee of five  Judges of  which four  met on  January 12,    1994, accepted the   findings  of guilt  recorded by  the  Enquiry officer and  recommended to the Government imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service .  The Government by order dated March 2,  1994 recorded as under:      "AND WHEREAS,  thereupon the  chief      Justice and  the Judges of the High      Court  Disciplinary  Authority  had      served a  show cause  notice on the      said Shri  S.R. Patil  calling upon      him to  show cause why the findings      recorded  by  the  Enquiry  officer      should not  be confirmed   and  why      the punishment  of  dismissal  from      service should  not be imposed upon      him.      AND WHEREAS,  after considering the      cause shown by the said Shri Patil,      the  Disciplinary   Authority   has      recommended to  the  Government  to      impose the  Punishment of dismissal      from service on said Shri Patil.      AND WHEREAS,   on  considering  the      report and  the         findings of      the Enquiry  officer and  the cause      shown by  the said  Shri Patil  and      the  recommendation  of  the  Chief      Justice and  the Judges of the High      court of  Judges of  the High court      of Judicature at Bombay,  being the      Disciplinary   Authority        the      Government  of   Maharashtra    has      decided   to    accept   the   said      recommendation."      Accordingly,  the   State   Government   directed   the respondent’s dismissal from service from the date of receipt of the  said order  by him.  Feeling aggrieved,   he filed a writ petition in the High court Challenging the order of his dismissal and  the recommendation  made by  the Committee of the High  Court and the findings of the Enquiry Office.  The High Court  set aside the order of dismissal on two grounds, viz.,   that a  resolution was  passed by  the Full Court on behalf  of  the  High  court’s  "recommendation  by  way  of disciplinary  action   against  any  Judge  or  Magistrate". Subsequently,   on December  15, 1984,  it   was respect  of punishment of  judicial officers  would be  exercised  by  a Committee of  five Judges  to  be  appointed  by  the  Chief Justice.   On  the  basis  thereof,  the  recommendation  of dismissal of  the respondent  from service  was made without the  concurrence  of  the  Full  Court.    Therefore,    the ultimate order  passed by   the  Government  dismissing  the respondent on  the foot   of  the  above  recommendation  is illegal  .    The  Division  Bench  also  observed  that  on consideration of  the    evidence on recorded, no reasonable man   would    reach    the    conclusion        that    the respondent had  demanded illegal gratification for rendering judgment  in   an  injunction  petition  in  favour  of  the Plaintiff.    Accordingly,    it  set  aside  the  order  of dismissal.      Shri Harish  Salve, senior   counsel  for the appellant has contended  that the view taken by the High Court  is not correct in  law.   The decision  of  the  Committee  is  the decision on  behalf   of the  Full Court,   pursuant  to the aforestated Resolutions.  The expression  "delegation of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

power of the High court in respect of punishment of judicial officers" is  wide enough  to include appointment of enquiry officer,   consideration of  his  report  by  the  committee constituted  by   the  chief  Justice  under  the  aforesaid Resolutions   of his  report,   show cause  notice,    reply thereto and  to reach  the decision  is the function  of the High Court.   The committee discharges the said functions on behalf of the High Court.  Therefore,  the view taken by the Division Bench  that the  decision should  have taken by the Full court  is not  correct in law.  He also highlighted the administrative inconvenience  of all  the Judges  to sit and deal  with   disciplinary  matters,    since  they  transact judicial  business while sitting at different places,  viz., Aurangabad,   Nagpur and  Goa,   apart    from Bombay; hence they cannot  the expected to come over every time  to Bombay and decide  the routine  administrative matters  in the Full court.   The Full  Court having  authorised the Committee of five Judges  to   perform those  functions,    it  would  be competent for  the  said    five  Judge  committee  to  take decision in  that behalf.   Such  a decision  is by  and  on behalf of  the High  court.   The Division Bench is also not right in  reaching the  conclusion that  the evidence is not sufficient and  on the  foot of  it no  reasonable man would reach the  conclusion   that misconduct  on the  part of the respondent has been  proved.  It is a fact to be deduced  on consideration of  the evidence  on record.   The  High Court after perusal  of the enquiry report agreed with the Enquiry officer that  charge Nos.  1 and  2 and  part of charge No.3 were proved  and issued  the show cause notice as to why the same could not be accepted. On receipt of the representation from the respondent,  it considered the same and advised the Governor that  the delinquent  officer committed  misconduct and is  liable to be dismissed from service.  The Government accepted the same and dismissed the respondent from service. thus, it  is contended  by  Shri  Salve  that  the  ultimate decision of  the dismissal of the respondent from service is of the  Government not  of the  High court.  All  procedural formalities in  that behalf  are incidental and ancillary to reach the  decision.   The High  Court,   therefore, was  in error in  its conclusion  that the  Committee of five Judges could not  decide the  matter by  itself.   On merits of the case, he  contended that  the evidence  of  the  Plaintiff’s Advocate  was  found  sufficient  by  the  Committee  to  be accepted.   Accordingly,   it reached  the  conclusion  that dismissal from  service could  meet the  desired  discipline among the members of the subordinate judicial officers.  The judicial review  is not  meant to re-appreciate the evidence charge  by   charge  and   witness  after  witness;    court cannot substitute  its own  decision in place of that of the disciplinary authority  and the Government,  The High court, therefore, was   clearly in error to treat the report of the committee as non est.      Shri Batra,  learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, relying on  the aforesaid  Resolution of  the Full court and the action  taken by  the Committee,   highlighted  that the later Resolution  is only  to impose  a penalty of dismissal from service.   It  has no  power  to  appoint  the  Enquiry officer, framing  of the  charges,    consideration  of  the report and  the decision  taken  to  recommend  respondent’s dismissal from service.  All these steps are illegal and are without authority  of law.   He   also  contended  that  the Enquiry officer  was biased  against the  respondent for the reason that the charges framed by the Enquiry officer do not reflect on  the charges  framed by the High Court;  thereby, the power  to impose  punishment was  in derogation   of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

recommendation of  the committee  of five Judges. As a fact, the recommendation was made only by four Judges,  Therefore, it is  a    quorum  non juridicus.   The finding of the High court in  that behalf  is well justified.  He also contended on merits  that the  Enquiry  officer was biased against the respondent.   He had  specifically pleaded,  in the reply to the show cause notice issued by the High court,  the bias on the part  of the  Enquiry officer.   The  evidence  was  not properly considered  by the  Disciplinary  Authority.    The Resolution of  the Full  Court was only to give power to the committee to  impose punishment  and to  complete all  other procedural formalities  which are  otherwise required  to be done by  the Full Court.  Even the recommendation was not of five Judges;   only  four Judges made of dismissal per se is illegal. Shri  Batra  contended  that  the  Division  Bench, therefore,     is  right     in   its  conclusion  that  the recommendation for  dismissal is not in accordance with law. The manner in which the evidence was recorded,  The question posed for  consideration and  the charges  framed, all would indicate the  pre-disposition of  the bias  of  the  Enquiry officer.  Earlier,  there was no allegation in the complaint made by  the plaintiff’s   advocate of any demand of illegal gratification.  His only grievance was that judgment was not quickly being  delivered.   In the absence of any demand and acceptance of  the illegal  gratification, the  charges were not proved.   Putting signature at different proceedings was a routine matter and is adopted by every judicial officer in discharge of  his duties.  The evidence is not sufficient to support the  conclusion that  the charges  have been  proved against the  respondent.   The Division  Bench of  the  High court,   therefore, is  right in  holding that  the  Enquiry officer was  very   much biased  against  the respondent and that no  reasonable man  would reach  the conclusion  on the basis of there evidence on  record,  that the respondent had committed misconduct entailing his dismissal from service.      In view  of the  respective contentions,   the  primary question for  consideration  is;  whether  the  Disciplinary committee was  committee was  competent to  recommend to the Government,   imposition   of penalty  of dismissal  of  the respondent from  service?   Article 235  of the constitution envisages "Control  over subordinate  courts" and postulates as under:      "The control  over district  courts      and  courts   subordinate   thereto      including the posting and promotion      of, and  the  grant  of  leave  to,      persons belonging  to the  judicial      service of  a state and holding any      post  inferior   to  the   post  of      district shall  be  vested  in  the      High court,   but  nothing in  this      article  shall   be  construed   as      taking away  from  any  person  any      right of  appeal which  he may have      under  the   law   regulating   the      conditions of  his  service  or  as      authorising the  High court to deal      with   him    otherwise   than   in      accordance with  the  condition  of      his service  Prescribed under  such      law."      In Shamsher  Singh V/s  Punjab &  Anr.   [(1974) 2  SCC 831],   a Bench  of seven Judges of this court,  considering the scope  of Article  235,    had  that the  High court  is invested  with   ,  under   the  said  Article,  control  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

subordinate judiciary.    The  members  of  the  subordinate judiciary are not only under the control but also under care and   custody of  the High court.  The enquiry should be got conducted through  a District  Judge. In The Registrar, High court of  madras V/s  R. Rajiah  [ (1988)  3 SCC  211], this court had held thus:      "The test  of control  is  not  the      passing  of   an  order  against  a      member of  the subordinate judicial      service,   but the decision to take      such action.  It may be that so far      as            the  members  of  the      subordinate  judicial  service  are      concerned, it  is the Governor, who      being   the  appointing  authority,      has to  pass an order of compulsory      retirement   or    any   order   of      punishment against  such a  member.      But  passing  or  signing  of  such      orders by  the Government  will not      necessarily take  away the  control      of the  High  court  vested  in  it      under   article    235    of    the      constitution.   An  action  against      any Government  servant consists of      two parts.  Under the first part, a      decision  will   have  to  be  made      whether an  action  will  be  taken      against  the   Government  servant.      Under the second part, the decision      will be  carried out  by  a  formal      order.     The  power   of  control      envisaged under  Article 235 of the      Constitution relates  to the  power      of making  a decision  by the  High      court  judicial   service.  Such  a      decision is  arrived at  by holding      an  enquiry   by  the   High  court      against     the  member  concerned.      After the  High court  comes to the      conclusion that  some action either      in   the   nature   of   compulsory      retirement or  by the imposition of      a punishment,  as the  case may be,      has to  be taken against the member      concerned,     the  High  court  by      passing an order in accordance with      the decision  of  the  High  court.      The  Government   cannot  tame  any      action  against  any  member  of  a      subordinate    judicial     service      without,  and  contrary  to  ,  the      recommendation of the High court."      The decision  of this in High court of M.P. V/s. Mahesh Prakash &  ors. [AIR 1994 SC 2595] relied upon by Shri Batra is of  little assistance  i n  the    facts  of  this  case. Therein ,   the  question was  whether the view of the chief Justice could  be considered  by the  Full court and whether expression of  his view  prevented independent consideration by the  full court.   In  that behalf,   this Court had held that Chief  Justice being head of the judiciary in the state and in  overall  control of the administration, knows better about the   subordinate  judicial officers.   His  views are entitled   to greater weightage.  The discussion at the Full court meeting takes place after consideration of the view of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

the chief  justice and  the material.   The  court concluded that in   every  case the  Full court  is  not  required  to constitute committee  to  decide  all  disciplinary  actions against the  subordinate   judiciary. Far  from helping  the respondent, it  goes in  favour of  the appellant insofar as the   chief justice  has overall control and,  therefore, he exercises control  of subordinate  judiciary as head  of the High court and the  control under Article 235 is of the High court  as head of the judiciary in the state, subject to the resolutions by the Full court and further delegation in that behalf.      It would  thus be  settled law  that the control of the subordinate judiciary  under   Article 235  is vested in the High court.   After the appointment of the judicial officers by  the  Governor,  the  e  power  to    transfer.  maintain discipline and   keep  control over  them vests  in the High Court is   first  among the  judges of  the High court . The taken is  by the  High court and not by the Chief Justice in his individual  capacity ,  nor by  the Committee of Judges. For the convenient transaction of administrative business in the   court, the  Full Court of the Judges of the High Court generally passes  a resolution authorising the Chief Justice to constitute  various committees including the committee to deal     with  disciplinary   matters  pertaining   to   the subordinate  judiciary  or  the  ministerial  staff  working therein .  Article 235,  therefore,  relates to the power of laking a  decision by the High court against a member of the subordinate judiciary.   Such  a decisions  either  to  hold enquiry into  conduct of a judicial officer,  subordinate or higher judiciary,   or to have the enquiry conducted through a District  or Additional  district Judge  etc.      and  to consider   the reported  of the  Enquiry officer  for taking further action is of the High court.  Equally,  the decision to consider  the report  of the enquiry officer and  to take follow    up     action    and     to    make    appropriate recommendation to  the  Disciplinary  Committee  or  to  the Governor ,  is entirely of the High Court which acts through the Committee  of the  Judges authorised  by the Full Court. Once a  resolution is  Passed by  the Full Court of the High court, there  is no  further necessity  to refer  the matter again  to  the  Full  Court  while  taking  such  procedural steps relating to  control of the subordinate judiciary.      It  is  true  that  a  resolution  came  to  be  passed authorising the  Committee off  five  Judges  to  deal  with imposition of  punishment on judicial officers. The question of  punishment   on  judicial   officers.     The  question, therefore, is  : whether  it requires  the Chief Justice and the Committee  to initiate  disciplinary proceedings?    The "delegation   of  the function  of the High Court in respect of punishment  of judicial  officers" is  an  expression  of width and  of wide  amplitude to cover within  its ambit the power to  take a decision by the Committee from the stage of initiation of  disciplinary   proceedings,   if   necessary, till its   logical  and  ,  viz.,    recommendation  to  the Government to  impose   a penalty proposed by the Committee. The recommendation  is by  the High  court, the  controlling authority under Article 235 of the constitution.  Therefore, it is  difficult to accept the contention of Shri Barta that the delegation  is only  for   imposition of  punishment  on judicial officers.  In fact,   the         High Court has no power to  impose any   punishment by itself.  The appointing authority   under the  Constitution to  impose punishment in accordance  with   the  rules   framed  for   the   purpose. Therefore,     the  entire  gamut  of  procedural  steps  of disciplinary action  is by  the  High  court  which  is  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

controlling authority  through the committee constituted  in that    behalf    by    the    Chief    justice    of    the high court.      It is  true, as  contended   stated Shri  Batra,   that power of disciplinary action was delegated to a committee of five Judges.   The  recommendation came to be made only by a committee of  four   Judges.   Though   his contention  that the decision   to dismiss the respondent is of the committee of  four Judges is prima facie  plausible to be accepted, we find no  force for  diverse reasons.   we  called upon  Shri Harish Salve  to produce  the  original  record.    Pursuant thereto,   the records  are  placed before us. We find  from the record  that after  the   receipt of  the re  ply of the respondent to  the show  cause notice,   the  copies of  the record were  circulated to  all the  five Judges.   The file was circulated to all the judges. One of the learned Judges, however, due  to unavoidable reasons,  was absent on the day of the  meeting;   the fact,   viz.,   that four out of five Judges  assembled to transact the business as per the agenda including  the   item  relating   to   acceptance   of   the recommendation of the Enquiry officer and proposed to punish the respondent with dismissal from service.  it is true that there is no further resolution  passed  to constitute quorum for taking   a  decision.   It is common experience that  in some of  the High  Courts there  is  no  express  resolution constituting quorum.   Ex abundanti cautela some High courts pass such  resolution as   to  the quorum.   However,    the practice   has   grown    that  generally  majority  of  the Committee,     when   assembled,      would   transact   the administrative   business and  take decisions.  In the light of the  settled legal  position  that the     decision taken is that  of the   High Court and the Committee acted for and on behalf of the High court,  the majority of four Judges of the Committee,   even  in  the  absence    of  such  express resolution,   does constitute the quorum and is competent to transact the administrative  business  of the Court,  Out of five,  three  members always constitute a quorum so as to be competent to  take decision   since  even  if it is  assumed that all  the five  members were  present and  they  decided against the  respondent,   the opinion  of four Judges would constitute majority decision.  It may be expedient  that all the Judges  sit or  the record  is circulated to all of them and they  take  decision.  Unless  someone  of  the  members express their  his   dissent from  the  decision  taken  per majority,   the fifth  member also   must  be deemed to have agreed to  the decision   of the majority,  though no formal concurrence in  that behalf  was recorded.   It is seen that all the four learned Judges unanimously decided recommending to the  learned Judges  unanimously decided  recommending to the Governor  to impose  the punishment  of dismissal of the respondent from  service.   It constitutes       the quorum. The Governor   acted  upon   the same  and issued  order  of dismissal of  the respondent.   a resume of the contents  of dismissal  order by the Government, does  indicate that  the Government did  in fact    understood  the recommendation is of the  High court,  i.e.,   Chief Justice  and    companion Judges.     The  Governor  being  the  competent  authority, validly  and   legally  passed   the  order  dismissing  the respondent from  service.  Even if there is any irregularity in the  procedure,   i.e., absence  of a Judge, it  does not vitiate the   order   of  dismissal by  any  error  of  law. considered from  this perspective  also,   we hold  that the order of  the   Governor acting upon the recommendation made by the  High Court  is not vitiated by any manifest error of law.   The order  of dismissal  does indicate  that      the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

Governor independently considered the record and came to the conclusion   that the  proposed punishment  of  respondent’s dismissal   from service  was warranted on the proved facts. We, accordingly,  hold that  the Division Bench committed an error of  law in  holding that  the  order  of  respondent’s dismissal  from     service   is  beset   with   illegality, warranting interference  by the  Division Bench  on judicial side.      The  question  then  is:  whether  the  High  court  is justified in  recommending to  the Governor the respondents’ dismissal from  service on  the basis  of  the  material  on record and  whether                   the evidence on record was not  sufficient to  conclude the  misconduct  of  having demanded illegal gratification ?  In a democracy governed by rule of law, under a written constitution,  judiciary is the sentinel on  the qui vive to protect the  fundamental rights and posed  to keep  even scales  of  justice  between  there citizens and the States or  States inter se. Rule of law and judicial              review    are  basic  feature  of  the Constitution.   As its  integral  constitutional  structure, independence of  the judiciary  is an essential attribute of rule of  law.   Judiciary must,   therefore,   be  free from pressure or  influence from  any quarter.   The constitution has secured  to him,    the  independence.  The  concept  of "judicial independence" is a wider concept taking within its sweep independence   from  any other  pressure or prejudice. It has many dimensions , namely, fearlessness of other power centers,     economic  or   political,  and   freedom   from prejudices, acquired  and nourished,  by the  class to which the Judge  belongs.   Independent Judiciary,   therefore, is most essential to protect the liberty of citizens.  In times of grave  danger, it  is  the  constitutional  duty  of  the judiciary to  poise the   scales  of justice  unmoved by the powers (actual or perceived),  undisturbed by the clamour of the multitude.   The  heart of  judicial    independence  is judicial individualism.   The judiciary is not a disembodied abstraction. It  is composed of individual men and women who work primarily  on   their  own.  {vide C. Ravichandran Iyer Vs.  Justice A.M.  Bhattacharjee & ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 457]}. The constitution  of India  has delineated  distribution  of sovereign power  between the  legislature,   executive   and judiciary.   The judicial  service is  not service   in  the since of  employees.  As  members  of  the  judiciary,  They exercise the  sovereign   judicial power of the State.  They are  holders   of  public   offices  in   the  same  way  as the members  of the  Council of Ministers and the Members of the Legislature.  It is  an office  of public trust and in a democracy,   such as  ours ,  the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary constitute the three pillars of the State. What is  intended to be conveyed is that the three essential functions of the State are  entrusted to the three organs of there state  and each  one of  them in  turn represents  the authority of the State.  The Judges, at what ever level they may be,   represent  the state and its authority, unlike the beaurocracy or the  members of the others service. {vide All India Judges’  Association &  ors. vs. union of India & Ors. [(1993) 4  SCC 288  paras 7  and 9  ] (second  case)}.   The Judges do  not do  an easy job.  They repeatedly do what the rest of  us seek  to avoid,  i.e., make  decisions.  Judges, though are   mortals,  they are  called upon  to  perform  a function that  is the  kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration   of justice.   He  directly comes in contact with the  litigant during  the day do day proceedings in the Court.   On him  lies the  responsibility  to  build  solemn atmosphere in  dispensation of  justice,   the  personality,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

knowledge,  judicial restraint, capacity to maintain dignity character,   conduct,   official as  well as  personal,  and integrity  are   the  additional   aspects  which  make  the functioning of  the court successful and acceptable.  Law is a means  to an  end  and  justice  is  that  end.    But  in actuality,     Law  and   Justice  are  distant  neighbours; sometimes  even  strange  hostiles.    If  law  shoots  down justice,   the  people    shoot  down  law  and  lawlessness paralyses development,  disrupts order and retards progress. {vide All  India Judges Association vs.  Union of    India & Ors.  (1992)   1  SCC   119]  quoted  with  approval,    and the statement  of law, by Krishna Iyer} Fourteenth Report of the Law,  commission ,  extracted and approved by this court in the above judgment, postulates thus:      " If the public is to give profound      respect     to      the      judges      the  judges     should   by   their      conduct try  and observe it; not by      word or deed should they give cause      for the people         that they do      not deserve  the pedestal  on which      we expect  the  public    to  place      them.   It appears  to us  that not      only for  the  performance  of  his      duties but  outside  the  court  as      aloofness amounting almost to self-      imposed isolation."      There in  also, it  was further  observed that  what is required of  a Judge  is "  a form  of life  and conduct far more server  and restricted  than that  of ordinary  people" and through unwritten,  it has  been most strictly observed. The Judicial  officers are at once privilege and restricted; they have  to present  a continuous aspect of        dignity and conduct.  If  the rule of law is to efficiently function under the  aegis of  our democratic   society,   Judges  are expected to  nurture an  efficient,   strong and enlightened judiciary.   To have it that way,  the nation has to pay the price,     i.e.,  to   keep     them  above  wants,  provide infrastructural facilities   and services.  There was a time when a Judge enjoyed  a high status in society. A government founded on anything except liberty and justice cannot  stand and no  nation   founded on injustice can permanently stand. Therefore,   dispensation of justice is an     essential and inevitable feature  in  the  civilized  democratic  society. Maintenance of  law and  order requires  the presence  of an efficient system  of administration  on criminal  justice. A scene of  confidence in  the court  is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for free people  and it is for the subordinate  judiciary by  its action  and      the high court by  its appropriate  control of  subordinate juridicay and its   own  self imposed judicial conduct, on and off the bench, to ensure it.  If one forfeits  the confidence in the judiciary of  its people,  it  can  never  regain  its  lost respect and  esteem.  The conduct of every judicial officer, therefore,    should  be  above  reproach.    He  should  be conscientious,    studious,  thorough,  courteous,  patient, punctual, just,  impartial, fearless  of  public    clamour, regardless of  public praise,   and  indifferent to private, political or  partisan influences;    he  should  administer justice according  to law,  and deal with his appointment as a   public trust;  he should  not allow other affairs or his private  interests   to  interfere  with  the    prompt  and proper performance  of his  judicial duties,  nor should  he administer the  office   for the  purpose of  advancing  his personal ambitions  or increasing  his popularity.    If  he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

tipps the  scales of  justice, its  nippling effect would be disastrous and  deleterious.   Obviously,   therefore,  this court in  All India  Judges’ Association  case attempted  to ensure better  uniform conditions of service for subordinate judiciary throughout  the coutry,  it recommended  that  the superannuation of  the subordinate  judicial officer  at the age of  60 years; and  ensured amelioration of their service conditions by  giving diverse  direction.   In 2nd All India Judges’ Association case , this court dealt with  the status of he  judicial   officer as  a class and held that they are above     the  personnel  working  in  other  constitutional functionaries, viz.,  the  Executive  and  the  Legislative. Directions were  issued  by  this  court  for  ensuring  due implementation for  their better  service conditions.  Three years’ minimum  service at  the   bar was  recommended to be eligible to be a judicial officer in All India Judges’ Assn. Ors. v.  Union of  India   & ors.  [(1994) 6 SCC 314] (third case). In  All India Judges’ Association V. Union of India & Ors. [(1994)  4 SCC 727(4th case)],  direction was issued to ensure accommodation.      In Chapter  V of  the   Constitution,   by operation of Article 235, total and absolute control over the subordinate judiciary, of  the District  Courts and  courts  subordinate thereto is  entrusted and  is being  exercised by  the  High court concerned.  All the High Court judges collectively and individually share  that         responsibility. The service conditions are  regulated under  the  statutory  rules  made under proviso  to Article  309  of  the  Constitution,  they relate to  the recruitment  and appointment  of the judicial officers.   Their tenure  is ensured  by Article  311 of the Constitution subject to the pleasure of the president or the Governor ,  as the  case may  be, Under  article 310 of  the constitution  .    Thereby,  they  are  insulated  from  any pressure of  whatsoever to  adjudicate disputes  between the citizens    and  the  state,  without  any  fear  or  favor, prejudice or predilections.      Corruption,   appears to  have spread  everywhere.   No facet of  public   function has  been left unaffected by the putrefied stinck  of corruption.   Corruption,  thy name  is depraved and  degraded conduct.  Dishonesty  is  thine  true colour;  thine  corroding  effect  is  deep  and  pervasive; spreads like  lymph-nodes,   cancerous cells  in human  body spreading   as wild fire eating away the vital veins in  the efficacy of  public functions.    It  is  a  sad  fact  that corruption has its  roots and semification in the society as whole.   In the     widest  connotation, corruption includes improper or selfish exercise of power and influence attached to a  public office.  The root of corruption is nepotism and apathy in  control  on  narrow  considerations  which  often extends   passive protection  to the  corrupt officers.  The source and  succour  for acceptability of the judgment to be correct, is  the upright  conduct,    character,    absolute integrity and  displayed on and off the Bench becomes centre stage of the judicial officer.  Fallen standard of rectitude is the  bane   for lost  faith of  the people  ,  tending to defeat the constitutional scheme of conferment of the powers of judicial  review or  decision   according to  law  unless checks and corrective measures are applied and enforced. The conferment of  exclusive power  of judicial  review   on the judiciary may  become   means to personal gain or advantage. The Tymph-nodes  (cancerous cells ) of corruption constantly keep creeping  into  the    vital  veins  of  judiciary  and the need  to  stem  it  out  by  judicial  surgery  lies  on judiciary itself  by its self-imposed or corrective measures or  disciplinary   action  under  the  doctrine  of  control

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

enshrined in  Articles 235,124(6)  of the  constitution.  It would,  therefore,  be  necessary  that    there  should  be constant  vigil   by  the   High  Court   concerned  on  its subordinate judiciary  and self-introspection.  What is most necessary is  to stem  out the  proclivity  of  the  corrupt conduct rather     than to catch when            the corrupt demands made  and    acceptance  of  illegal  gratification. Corruption in  judiciary cannot  be committed  without  some members of  the Bar  become   privy to  the  corrupt.    The vigilant watch  by the  High court,  and many  a time by the members of  the Bar,  is the  sustaining stream to catch the corrupt and  to deal  with the  situation appropriately.  At the same  time the  High Court  is the  protector    of  the subordinate judiciary.   Often  some members  of the bar, in particular, in  Muffasil courts,    attempt  to  take  undue advantage of  their long  standing at the bar and attempt to abuse their  standing by  bringing or  attempting  to  bring about diverse  form of  pressures and  pin-pricks on  junior judicial officers  or stubborn  and   stern  and  unbendable officers.   If they  remain unsuccessful,  to achieve  their nefarious purpose,   some  members   of the  Bar indulge  in mudslinging without  any base, by sending repeated anonymous letters against  the judicial  officer  questioning    their performance/  capacity/integrity.  The  High  Court  should, therefore, take  care of  the judicial  officers and protect them from  such unseeming  attempts or  pressures so  as  to maintain their  morale  and  independence  or  the  judicial officer and support the honest and upright officers.      It would  , therefore,  be necessary to see whether the respondent has  committed misconduct  by  demanding  illegal gratification.    The    fallen  standard  in  morality  and rectitude in  the general   public   finds  its transmission into   the judiciary  as well.  Since the  respondent was  a probationer ,   he  was more  prone to  tread  the  path  of corrupt practice  of   demanding illegal gratification to do judicial work, namely, to grant or refuse to grant and order of injunction  in the    suit.    The  tendency  to  corrupt activity is  more serious  and       deleterious than actual catch of  a corrupt  judicial officer  while  demanding  and accepting illegal gratification.  Therefore, if the evidence adduced  during   the  departmental   enquiry   proves   the proclivity of  corrupt conduct on the part of there judicial officer and  enquiry into  his conduct  is fair and germane, the imposition   of punishment should  be appropriate to the magnitude of  the misconduct.  The question,  therefore,  is whether there  respondent has committed misconduct?      It is  seen that  at the  inception the advocate of the plaintiff had  not alleged  that the respondent had demanded illegal gratification for rendering judgment in favor of his client to  grant ad  interim injunction.   Indisputably, the advocate had  no axe to grind against the delinquent officer nor could  he gain from any unfair advantage. In the absence of any  demand of  illegal gratification,  a different  view might  be   possible.    Yet,  it  being  in  the  realm  of appreciation of  evidence, this  court  cannot  embark  upon appreciation of evidence and reach its own conclusion on the sufficiency   of evidence  or  on  the  correctness  of  the conclusion which  is based  on same  evidence.   Apart  from this, during  cross-examination, the omission was put to the advocate and  he explained  the reasons  for  the  omission, i.e.,  he was not interested to have the respondent punished and was  not interested  to have the respondent punished and was interested only  in early  orders.  That explanation was accepted by  the Enquiry  officer and  he  gave  reasons  in support thereof.   the  High  Court  also  examination  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

contention an  d accepted  the  explanation.    Under  these circumstances, being  in the  realm of  appreciate evidence, this court  cannot by itself, appreciate evidence, and reach a conclusion    different  from  that  of  the  Disciplinary Authority.   Allegation of  bias   also  is not warranted on the facts.  When we asked the counsel whether any allegation of bias   was  made at the inception  of the enquiry against the Enquiry  officer, he  candidly   admitted that  no  such allegations were  made.  The allegations came to be made for the first time in the reply to the show cause  notice issued by the  High court. It would , therefore, be obvious that it is an  afterthought attempt  to get  over the  report of the Enquiry officer.  The charges  were framed by the High Court and communicated   to  the Enquiry  officer. In  the enquiry report, he  merely posed questions  that arose for decision, in a  manner different  from the wording used in the charges but   it is   a  way of expression in considering the issue. It is  not   a sign   to  show that  the enquiry officer was biased or  that he  was prejudiced  against the  respondent. Thus we  hold that  the charge  No.1 stands established from the evidence  on record.  In that  view of the matter, it is not necessary go into other charges.      The  appeal   is  accordingly  allowed.  the  order  of respondent’s dismissal stands  confirmed and  the  writ  petition  stands dismissed.  No costs.