Division Bench Of Patna High Court Sets Aside Direction For Removal Of Sessions Judge From Criminal Roster Over Lack Of Knowledge

The Patna High Court has set aside an order of the single-judge directing for removal of Sessions Judge from the Criminal Roster over lack of basic knowledge of law, holding that the direction is beyond the Court's jurisdiction and that adverse remarks against a Judicial Officer could not have been passed without affording him any opportunity of putting his version on record.

The Court was considering a Letters Patent Appeal in a Criminal Revision Petition wherein the single judge directed for retention of the Sessions Judge.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed, "Since we have found such observations in the order against a Judicial Officer without affording him any opportunity of explaining his cause as also the direction to the Registrar General to be completely beyond the scope of the reach of revisional jurisdiction, we set aside such observations and direct for expunction of the relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraph 5 at page 6 (which should otherwise have been paragraph 6 in the order referred to above) and allow this appeal to the extent indicated above."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Piyush Lall while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Vikas Kumar.

Advocate for the High Court submitted that the Appeal is maintainable for the reason that the Single Judge ought not to have strayed in the administrative side while dealing with his revisional jurisdiction as such powers are precluded/not permitted under the statutory code and, therefore, any direction amounts to an assumption of a constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court pointed out that passing such direction is beyond the jurisdiction of a Judge dealing with criminal revision.

"Without entering into the facts of the case, which led the learned Single Judge to assume that the Judge concerned requires training, we observe that such an order could not have been passed without letting the Judicial Officer concerned put on record his version", the Court observed.

It stated that it is strange that such directions have been issued in a revisional jurisdiction, and if at all, the Single Judge was not happy with the understanding of the Judge concerned, this could have been dealt with only on the administrative side, as jurisdiction lies with the Chief Justice in administrative capacity.

"We have no doubt that while issuing such directions, the learned Single Judge has acted beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction and appears to have passed orders as if he were exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India", the Court observed.

It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Om Prakash Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan and Ors. (2014) wherein it was held that such findings are worth avoiding in the judgments, and while penning down the same, there should be a control over the language. It was held therein that a Judge is not to be guided by any kind of notion and that the decision-making process expects a Judge or an adjudicator to apply restraint, ostracise perceptual subjectivity and make one’s emotions subservient to one’s reasoning and think dispassionately.

The Court clarified that such observations against the Judicial Officer concerned shall not ever percolate in his ACR or be used for any purpose in any proceeding whatsoever. It further clarified that it has not questioned the correctness of the decision rendered by the Single Judge in the revisional jurisdiction, but has only expressed dissatisfaction over the en-passant, unnecessary and adverse remarks against a Judicial Officer without affording him any opportunity of putting his version on record.

It agreed that there is a complete non-application of mind by the Single Judge because the order which was impugned before him in the revisional jurisdiction was not even passed by the Officer against whom the comments have been passed.

The Appeal was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: The High Court of Judicature at Patna through the Registrar General, Patna High Court vs. Sundeshwar Kumar Das

Click here to read/ download Order