NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, NUALS, COCHIN,

KERALA

CASE REPORT

ABHAY JAIN V STATE OF JUDICATURE

OF RAJASTHAN

SUBMITTED BY

ANJANA UNNI

ROLL NO: 1919

1ST YEAR BA.LLB (HONS) DEGREE, NUALS

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………..…………………..1

2. FACTS OF THE CASE……………………..…..……………… 1 – 3

3. ISSUES RAISED……………………………..….……………... 3

4. ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES………..………….…….. 3 – 6

5. DECISION……………..………………………………….….….. 6 - 7

6. REASONING…………………………..……………………..…... 7

7. SOCIAL IMPACT………………..………………………..……… 8

8. CONCLUSION………………..……………………………...…… 8

9. REFERENCE…………………………………..…………………. 9
1. INTRODUCTION

This case discusses that a Judicial Officer cannot be prosecuted for mere negligence as

long as no corrupt intentions are involved. Negligence alone cannot be considered a

criminal offence. Abhay Jain, a judicial officer in 2013, was discharged from his service

in 2016 when a complaint was filed against him. The complaint alleged that he had been

granted bail with malicious and ulterior motives. However, Mr Jain claimed that it was

just negligence on his part and that no extraneous consideration was involved.

2. FACTS OF THE CASE

2013, Mr Abhay Jain became a judicial officer after passing the 2013 District Judge

Examination. He was then named a District Judge and placed on a two-year probationary

term. After completing his probation, he was designated as BHARATPUR’s Additional

District & Sessions Judge No. 2. Later, he was appointed as Sessions Judge of the

BHARATPUR Anti-Corruption Department and Presiding Officer of a Labor Tribunal.

The incident occurred during his tenure as a session judge in the Anti-Corruption

Department.

1
The case involved three people arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. K.

K. Jalia, the Municipal Corporation Chairman, was accused of accepting a bribe of Rs. 5

lakhs. Alimuddin, the Chairman of the Municipal Corporation, was charged with

accepting a bribe of Rs. 10 lakhs. Irfan, a non-official, was also allegedly involved in the

case. On February 23, 2015, a charge sheet was filed against each of the three accused.

On March 2, 2015, the appellant’s predecessor denied the bail of both Alimuddin and K.

K. Jalia.

On April 27, 2015, K. K. Jalia requested bail for the second time in the appellants’ court

and was granted it. However, the High Court had rejected the bail earlier and had asked

the appellant to provide feedback regarding the bail decision of K. K. Jalia, a co-accused.

The appellant justified his decision by claiming that he believed there must have been a

change in circumstances since the High Court's order was not presented to him. He also

claimed that the High Court had granted bail to the other two co-accused, to whom he

had denied it. After considering the explanation, the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High

Court directed a departmental investigation. The investigation against the appellant was

then concluded on May 2, 2016. The department did, however, retain the authority to

reopen the same. The appellant’s disciplinary proceedings were closed by the High Court

on May 5, 2016. Angry over the 27.01.2016 order, the appellant, on May 18, 2016, filed

a Writ Petition with the Rajasthan High Court.

2
 The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appellant’s Writ Petition against the order dated

27.01.2016 with an order dated 21.10.2019. The appellant, offended by the High above

Court Order dated October 21, 2019, filed this appeal through a Special Leave Petition.

3. ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether was there misconduct on the part of the judicial officer?

2. Was the judicial officer liable for negligence or malicious intentions, and was

discharging him from his office lawful?

4. ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

1. FROM APPELLANT SIDE

1. The appellant's senior counsel, Mr P.S. Patwalia, argues that the High

Court's discharge order was based on the investigation that started with a

memo dated August 7, 2015, instead of the appellant's "unsatisfactory

performance," as required by Rules 45 and 46 of the RJS Rules. This

argument suggests that the termination/discharge order is punitive and

3
 violates Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution. To support this

submission, the learned Senior Counsel emphasises the remarks and

observations from the appellant's Annual Confidential Reports (ACR).

2. The senior counsel also argues that no legitimate complaint was filed

against the appellant. The three complaints cited by the respondent are not

valid as (1) the appellant was not informed of these complaints during his

employment; (2) even after the first two complaints, dated 07.02.2014 and

21.04.2014, the appellant was promoted to the next higher position as

District Judge in the Labor Court; (3) two of the three complaints pertain

to 2014 and were filed and closed before the Higher Judicial Committee

meeting, so they could not have served as the foundation for the Higher

Judicial Committee's decision.

3. Furthermore, Mr Patwalia states that the entire recommendation of the

Higher Judicial Committee is based on the bail order dated April 27,

2015, and that no defect was discovered in the appellant's record. The

appellant's disciplinary inquiry judge was a member of the Higher Judicial

Committee tasked with making recommendations regarding the dismissal

or confirmation of judges. This was another point brought up by the

learned counsel. Additionally, it has been argued that the High Court

should have
 4

provided some justification for its statement that the termination order

was not based on the charge of misconduct relating to the bail order in the

contested order.

2. FROM RESPONDENT SIDE

1. Admittedly, the appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings concerning

a bail order dated April 27, 2015. However, it has been contended by the learned

senior counsel representing the respondent that the proceedings were concluded

on May 5, 2016, with the possibility of reopening them. Furthermore, it has been

suggested that the endorsed interim discharge simpliciter order implies lawful

termination at the employer's discretion. It has been opined that our honourable

Court has, in previous instances, deemed it permissible for an employer to issue

such a discharge without it being construed as punitive action, even when a

departmental inquiry is instituted.

2.The learned Senior Counsel, in addition, deemed it acceptable that the

appellant's reliance on the court's verdict in Pradip Kumar (above) is misplaced,

as the court, in that judgment, had established that the discharge in that case
 5

flouted the standard procedures outlined in the relevant legislation. Moreover, it

was argued that, in that instance, the Court had yet to be presented with evidence

to indicate that the officer did not satisfy the qualifications necessary to continue.

a. The Court's decision that an employer has the right to choose not to continue

employing a worker accused of misconduct and in whom the employer has no

interest in investigating has also been received satisfactorily.

This court's ruling was cited in Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P.

State AGRO Industries Corporation Ltd. [(1999) 2 SCC 21]. It

was decided that:

Even if a charge memo is issued, a reply is obtained, and an

enquiry officer is appointed during a routine departmental

inquiry.

5. JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court has ruled that a judicial officer cannot face disciplinary action for

issuing an incorrect order. The court emphasised that incompetence alone does not

qualify as misconduct. The court referred to the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of

India [(2013) 9 SCC 566] and pointed out that the judicial officer's annual confidential
 report (ACR) should have been sent to him promptly. The Court stated that a Judicial

Officer

must be informed of each ACR entry within a reasonable time frame. The court also

acknowledged that, particularly early in their careers, judges may make mistakes that

they would be less likely to make with more experience. The court also emphasised the

importance of determining whether an officer intended to commit corruption. The

appellant in this case was terminated as a disciplinary action, but the court noted that

mere carelessness does not qualify as misconduct. Simple carelessness cannot be

classified as misconduct.

Finally, the court pointed out that no evidence indicated that the appellant was at fault

for subpar performance, as required by Rules 45 and 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial

Service Rules, 2010. The appellant was entitled to the protections outlined in Article

311(2) of the Constitution, and no credible complaint had been made against him.

6. REASONING

The Court made a decision to overturn the High Court's ruling and ordered the appellant to

be reinstated. This decision by the Supreme Court is commendable. Judicial officers are
human and can make mistakes, and charging them for such mistakes or wrong decisions

would have set a dangerous precedent.

7. SOCIAL IMPACT

Cases involving allegations of judicial misconduct can harm the public's trust in the legal

system and its ability to deliver justice fairly. If the accused judicial officer is found

guilty, it can reinforce the perception of corruption or favouritism within the judiciary,

leading to disillusionment among citizens. However, suppose the officer is acquitted or

the allegations are proven to be unfounded. In that case, it can help restore confidence in

the system's ability to hold accountable those entrusted with upholding the law.

8. CONCLUSION

In this case, a Judicial Officer named Abhay Jain was discharged in 2016 after a

complaint was filed against him for granting bail with malicious and ulterior motives.

However, he claimed that it was only due to his negligence and that there was no

extraneous consideration on his part. The Supreme Court later reversed the High Court's

decision and ordered the appellant to be reinstated. This decision is essential because it

acknowledges that judicial officers can make mistakes, and bringing charges against

them for mistakes they made or incorrect choices they made would have set a dangerous
 precedent. The Supreme Court correctly sided with the Judicial Officer, recognising that

negligence alone cannot be considered misconduct.

9. REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155486886/

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/44074/44074_2019_9_1501_34163_Judgement_15-

Mar-2022.pdf
9