Decision To Close Preliminary Enquiry Against Judicial Officers Amenable To Judicial Review Only In Exceptional Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the decision to close preliminary enquiry initiated against a Judicial Officer is amenable to judicial review, only in exceptional cases.

The Court was considering Writ Petition seeking quashing of an order vide which the then Administrative Judge closed preliminary enquiry into allegations made by the Petitioner (a practicing lawyer) against the Judicial Officer and member of Superior Judicial Service.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed, "....Once the complaint submitted on administrative side against a Judicial Officer is processed as per laid down norms, decision to close preliminary enquiry is not amenable to judicial review, except in cases of proven malafides, violation of any fundamental right or the impugned decision being so abhorrent to the basic tenets of law that it shakes the conscious of a common man. None of these grounds is made out in the present case."

The Petitioner was present in-person while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan.

Facts of the Case

The prayer made in the Petition was for quashment of administrative order closing the preliminary enquiry against Respondent for issuance of a direction to the State to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent; and till then withhold the issuance of Integrity Certificate; and withdraw judicial work from Respondent.

The question for Court's consideration was as to whether a complainant, who made a complaint of alleged misdeeds/misdemeanour by a Judicial Officer, can as a matter of right insist upon the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings, especially when the employer, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, has decided not to proceed on the disciplinary side against the Judicial Officer.

Reasoning By Court

Reflecting on the relationship between a Judicial Officer and the State/High Court, the Court observed, "... The administrative set up of the High Court is vested with enough discretionary powers to decide whether the material placed in shape of complaint, affidavit of the complainant and response of the Judicial Officer, are sufficient to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Judicial Officer concerned or not."

The Court held that once the Petitioner as a complainant has informed the controlling/disciplinary authority of Respondent about the misdemeanour, it is for the controlling/disciplinary authority, i.e. High Court, to enquire into the entire allegations and arrive at a conclusion whether to proceed further on the disciplinary side or not. In this exercise of conduction of preliminary enquiry by the controlling/disciplinary authority, the complainant/petitioner has no role to play.

It was further held that the complainant, during conduction or conclusion of preliminary enquiry, cannot prevail upon the controlling/disciplinary authority to take a particular view of the complaint. This preliminary enquiry is to be left entirely to the discretion of the controlling/disciplinary authority without any extraneous interference, including that of the complainant.

It thus answered the question in negative and further observed, "More so, the scope of interference under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution, in matters of this nature, is extremely restricted. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the administrative decision of closing preliminary enquiry, especially in the absence of any of the grounds as aforesaid."

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Amit Kumar vs. The State of Haryana and others 2025:PHHC:085149-DB

Appearances:

Petitioner- In-Person

Respondent- Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan, Advocate Kanwal Goyal

Click here to read/ download Order