New Delhi, Mar 3 (UNI) The Supreme Court has severely lambasted Allahabad High Court for demoting an Additional District Judge to the rank of a civil judge for granting bail to one of the accused in a murder case, terming the punishment as 'draconian and unjust.' A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Mr Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Mr Justice D K Jain, in a judgment dated February 26, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court of October 3, 2005 as well a judgment dated November 25 that year, directed that the appellant Ramesh Chander Singh shall be immediately posted to the District Judge cadre and paid all the monetary benefits due to him as a consequence thereof.
The apex court also quashed the full court order of the High Court imposing a penalty of withholding two increments with cummulative effect.
Singh, posted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi in 1994, had granted bail in 1996 to a student Ram Pal, who was an accused in a murder case, and was in jail for over a year while two other accused in the double murder case had already been granted bail.
A departmental inquiry was initiated against him on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant in the case, alleging that Ram Pal's father had paid him a bribe of Rs 80,000 for releasing his son on bail.
''We fail to understand as to how the High Court arrived at a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, solely based on the complaint -- the contents of which were not believed to be true by the High Court. A Sessions Judge is competent to grant bail and, if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the officer for passing such an order, it would adversely affect the morale of subordinate judiciary and no officer would be able to exercise this power freely and independently,'' the SC judgement said, adding that the apex court ''had, on several occasions, disapproved the practice of initiating disciplinary proceedings against officers of the subordinate judiciary, merely because the judgments/orders passed by them are wrong. Appellate and revisional courts have been established and given powers to set aside such orders.'' The apex court, however, remitted the matter back to the High Court to consider afresh the question of imposition of appropriate punishment on the appellant, while describing both the punishments as ''disproportionate'' to the lapse alleged to have been committed by him.
The 23-page judgment, which was written by the Chief Justice himself, also noted that the ACRs of Singh described him as an ''honest judicial officer.'' UNI
The apex court also quashed the full court order of the High Court imposing a penalty of withholding two increments with cummulative effect.
Singh, posted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi in 1994, had granted bail in 1996 to a student Ram Pal, who was an accused in a murder case, and was in jail for over a year while two other accused in the double murder case had already been granted bail.
A departmental inquiry was initiated against him on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant in the case, alleging that Ram Pal's father had paid him a bribe of Rs 80,000 for releasing his son on bail.
''We fail to understand as to how the High Court arrived at a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, solely based on the complaint -- the contents of which were not believed to be true by the High Court. A Sessions Judge is competent to grant bail and, if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the officer for passing such an order, it would adversely affect the morale of subordinate judiciary and no officer would be able to exercise this power freely and independently,'' the SC judgement said, adding that the apex court ''had, on several occasions, disapproved the practice of initiating disciplinary proceedings against officers of the subordinate judiciary, merely because the judgments/orders passed by them are wrong. Appellate and revisional courts have been established and given powers to set aside such orders.'' The apex court, however, remitted the matter back to the High Court to consider afresh the question of imposition of appropriate punishment on the appellant, while describing both the punishments as ''disproportionate'' to the lapse alleged to have been committed by him.
The 23-page judgment, which was written by the Chief Justice himself, also noted that the ACRs of Singh described him as an ''honest judicial officer.'' UNI
Oneindia Login