Findings Affecting Reputation Of Senior Judicial Officer Can't Rest On Rhetorical Inferences: Orissa High Court Grants Relief To Former Registrar
The High Court found that the charges relating to alleged missing records and irregular recommendations for promotions were unsupported by evidence and unsustainable in law.
The Orissa High Court has quashed a disciplinary penalty imposed on a former Registrar (Judicial) over alleged irregular promotion recommendations, holding that departmental findings affecting the reputation and integrity of a senior judicial officer cannot be founded on rhetorical inferences, moral impressions or assumptions unsupported by evidence.
The Court observed that where the department fails to establish misconduct through legally admissible evidence, findings of administrative indiscipline, misconduct or lack of integrity cannot be allowed to stand.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a member of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service challenging a disciplinary proceeding which culminated in the imposition of the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect.
The charges against him included alleged mishandling of administrative records, failure to maintain integrity and irregular recommendations relating to promotions under the High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019.
A Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed: “Departmental findings affecting the reputation and integrity of a senior judicial officer cannot rest on rhetorical inferences or moral impressions. Findings in disciplinary proceedings must be founded upon objective materials capable of establishing misconduct on the touchstone of probabilities. In the present case, even such a threshold is not satisfied.”
Upon examining the facts, the Bench additionally held: “The evidence led by the department does not establish that the petitioner acted independently, manipulated records, fabricated recommendations, suppressed any statutory provision, or derived any advantage from the disputed promotions. On the contrary, the materials disclose that the decisions in question emanated from the exercise of powers by Hon’ble Chief Justices at different stages and under differing administrative perceptions”
S.S. Rao, Senior Advocate, appeared for the petitioner. Debaraj Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate, appeared for the State, while Subir Palit, Senior Advocate, assisted by D.R. Bhokta, appeared for the High Court authorities.
Background
The petitioner, an officer of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service, had served in various capacities in the Registry of the High Court, including as Registrar (Judicial). A departmental proceeding was initiated against him after allegations surfaced regarding missing pages from an administrative file concerning promotion matters and his role in processing promotion-related notes, invoking Rule 38(10) of the 2019 Rules.
The departmental inquiry held the petitioner guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, administrative indiscipline and failure to maintain integrity and honesty. Accepting the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the inquiry report and consequential punishment order.
Court's Observations
The High Court found serious evidentiary deficiencies in the charge relating to the alleged disappearance of documents from the administrative file.
The Bench observed that the original file allegedly containing the missing pages was never produced during the inquiry proceedings. Neither the movement register nor any contemporaneous record demonstrating exclusive custody of the file with the petitioner was brought on record.
The Court held: “In the absence of production of the primary record itself, the conclusion that the documents were actually missing and that such disappearance occurred during the exclusive custody of the petitioner rests substantially on assumptions.”
The Court further noted that the petitioner's explanation that the file had been placed before the then Chief Justice and thereafter remained with a Special Committee found support from contemporaneous records and surrounding circumstances.
The Court noted that the departmental witness himself admitted that the documents allegedly missing were correspondence papers and that he could not say whether the petitioner had derived any personal benefit from their disappearance.
Referring to the evidence on record, the Bench observed: “There is complete absence of evidence demonstrating: (a) the precise stage at which the documents allegedly disappeared; (b) that the petitioner retained exclusive custody of the records; (c) that the petitioner removed the documents for any ulterior purpose; (d) that any prejudice was actually caused by the administration; or (e) that the petitioner gained any benefit whatsoever.”
The Court consequently held that the findings relating to misconduct, administrative indiscipline and failure to maintain integrity on account of the alleged missing records were vitiated by reliance on presumptions and non-consideration of material evidence.
The Court found that the inquiry officer had adopted an erroneous approach by requiring the petitioner to establish his innocence.
The Bench observed: “The burden always lies upon the department to establish misconduct on the basis of evidence. Failure of the delinquent to conclusively establish innocence cannot become a substitute for proof of guilt.”
The Court held that the inquiry report effectively shifted the burden of proof upon the petitioner and was therefore legally unsustainable.
Turning to the second limb of the charges, the Court held that the power under Rule 38(10) vested exclusively in the Chief Justice and that the petitioner, as Registrar (Judicial), merely processed the files and placed notes before the competent authority.
The Bench observed: “The final decision regarding invocation of such power indisputably rested with Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice and not with the petitioner. The petitioner, as Registrar (Judicial), merely processed the files and placed notes before the competent constitutional authority.”
The Court further noted that the departmental witness had admitted that expressions such as “as per kind direction of Your Lordship” were routinely used when directions had already been received from the competent authority and that approval of such notes implied application of mind by the authority concerned.
The Court held that there was no material to show that the petitioner independently manipulated the process, fabricated recommendations or acted for personal gain.
The Bench observed: “The evidence led by the department does not establish that the petitioner acted independently, manipulated records, fabricated recommendations, suppressed any statutory provision, or derived any advantage from the disputed promotions.”
The Court added: “On the contrary, the materials disclose that the decisions in question emanated from the exercise of powers by Hon’ble Chief Justices at different stages and under differing administrative perceptions.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the charge relating to the invocation of Rule 38(10), alleged irregular recommendations, and purported failure to maintain integrity was equally unsustainable in law.
The Court strongly disapproved of the inquiry officer's use of expressions such as “cavalier attitude”, “shifting of blame” and “brazen attempt to suppress truth” without linking such observations to substantive evidence.
The Court held that even the threshold of proving misconduct on a balance of probabilities had not been satisfied in the present case.
Conclusion
Allowing the writ petition, the Orissa High Court quashed both the inquiry report and the consequential punishment order imposing the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect.
The Court directed the authorities to restore all consequential service benefits in favour of the petitioner and expressed the expectation that the benefits of the judgment would be extended before his retirement from service.
Cause Title: Lalit Kumar Dash v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioner: S.S. Rao, Senior Advocate, assisted by Advocate B. Mohanty
Respondents: Debaraj Mohanty, AGA; Subir Palit, Senior Advocate, assisted by Advocate D.R. Bhokta