‘Needs handling with iron rod’: Allahabad High Court shows no mercy to clerk who ‘lost’ judicial file

Missing file

The case arose from the disappearance of a file relating to a complaint case from the office of the chief judicial magistrate, Rampur. An inquiry was initiated after the file could not be traced despite giving repeated opportunities to the staff.

The petitioner, who was the dealing clerk at the relevant time, was held responsible for the loss and found guilty of misconduct under the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. After providing the petitioner a hearing opportunity, the disciplinary authority passed an order withholding four increments with cumulative effect.

The petitioner’s appeal against the departmental action to the appellate authority was dismissed. Following this, he moved the high court.

Challenging the punishment, the petitioner argued that work allocation in the office was not strictly followed and that responsibility for the missing file had not been conclusively fixed. He added that the enquiry officer, without ascertaining who was the actual person responsible for the missing file, held him guilty illegally.

On the other hand, the counsel opposing the plea argued that the court cannot go into the merits of the case while exercising the power of judicial review. It was further contended that the court cannot interfere with the punishment order since a proper procedure was followed during the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, a prayer was made to dismiss the plea.

Limited scope of judicial review: Court

• At the outset, the Allahabad High Court noted that there was no allegation regarding the non-grant of a hearing opportunity to the petitioner.
• No argument was made regarding the punishment being disproportionate to the petitioner’s guilt, the court observed.
• Rejecting the challenge, the Allahabad High Court emphasised the limited scope of judicial review in service matters.
• Since the scope of judicial review is very limited, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, the court held, while dismissing the plea.

Supreme Court warns high courts for ‘adverse remarks’ against judges

Flagging a growing and “discordant” trend of high courts passing disparaging remarks and strictures against judicial officers while exercising appellate or supervisory jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has warned that such an approach risks undermining the morale of the district judiciary and may have serious consequences for the careers of judicial officers.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal challenging a Calcutta High Court order that had cancelled the accused’s bail nearly eight years after it was granted, on what were described as procedural and technical grounds.

“It has become a recent trend to castigate Judicial Officers and record adverse remarks/strictures against them in judicial orders passed by the High Court in the exercise of supervisory, appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The High Court, being a Court of record in the State, is expected to act as the guardian of the Officers in district judiciary,” the Supreme Court said on April 9, setting aside the Calcutta High Court‘s verdict.