New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the dismissal of a judicial officer from Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against members of the district judiciary solely for issuing allegedly wrong judicial orders.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan allowed the appeal filed by Nirbhay Singh Sulia, who had been removed from service in 2014 while serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. Sulia faced allegations of corruption and was accused of applying a “double standard” while deciding bail petitions under the Excise Act. The action had followed a departmental inquiry initiated by the High Court.
High Courts Must Exercise Caution
Justice K.V. Viswanathan stressed that High Courts must exercise extreme caution when initiating disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers. Such actions, if taken lightly, could undermine the independence of the district judiciary and make trial court judges hesitant to exercise their discretion, particularly in sensitive matters like bail. Justice Pardiwala added that the fear of administrative action could prevent trial judges from taking decisive action in meritorious cases.
No Leniency for Misconduct, But False Complaints Must Be Checked
The Supreme Court clarified that if a complaint of misconduct against a judicial officer is prima facie valid, disciplinary action must be initiated immediately, and no leniency should be shown if the allegations are proven. Justice Pardiwala emphasized that corruption at any level of the judiciary is intolerable and severely erodes public trust. However, the Court reiterated that a wrong order or an error of judicial discretion alone does not justify departmental action.
The bench also issued strict directions to prevent harassment of judicial officers through false or trivial complaints, ensuring that judges can perform their duties without fear or undue influence.
Discover more from SD NEWS agency
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.