A bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran allowed the appeal of Abhay Jain, who was discharged in 2016, nearly three years after joining as a higher judicial officer, for granting bail to an accused whose bail plea was rejected a few weeks ago by the high court.
“We hold that the appellant may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he did not carefully go through the case file and did not take notice of the order of the High Court which was on his file. This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct”, Justice Saran, writing the 70-page judgement for the bench, said.
The Supreme Court set aside the verdict of the Rajasthan High Court, dismissing the plea of the judicial officer and the administrative order discharging Jain from the post and directed reinstatement.
“Keeping in view that the appellant has not worked as a judicial officer after he was discharged, we direct that while the appellant be reinstated with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority, but will be entitled to be paid only 50 per cent back wages, which may be paid within a period of four months from today,” it ordered.
Referring to several verdicts, the bench said mere suspicion cannot constitute misconduct .
“Any probability of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, and this requirement has not been fulfilled in the present case … As has been rightly held by this court, such relief-oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer”, it said.
The judicial officer had come under the scanner for granting bail to one K.K. Jalia via a detailed order in April 2015 and the judicial records, along with his comments, were summoned by the high court.
An inquiry was initiated for alleged misconduct and the preliminary objections of the judicial officer were rejected by the Enquiry Judge of the high court.
Finally a full court, on January 20, 2016, took note of the report of the Higher Judicial Committee and decided to discharge Jain despite the pendency of the enquiry proceedings.
Dealing with the facts of the case, the Supreme Court’s verdict said there was no allegation of illegal gratification against the present appellant and moreover, the enquiry officer virtually sat as a court of appeal picking holes in the order granting bail, even when he could not find any extraneous reason for the grant of the bail order.
“Notably, in the present case, there was not a string of continuous illegal orders that have been alleged to be passed for extraneous considerations. The present case revolves only around a single bail order, and that too was passed with competent jurisdiction”, it said.
