Rakia Imran
On 6th February, 2025, a Double-Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to intervene in disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer, a member of the Superior Judicial Services, who allegedly awarded excessive compensation in a road accident case based on external influences.
While hearing a petition from a judicial officer serving in the Superior Judicial Services, the Court said, “A bare perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that after alleged grant of excessive compensation for loss of love and affection of Rs. 20,69,688/- and Rs.18,25,400/- in two separate MACT cases, the High Court also alleged that the same are based on some extraneous consideration without specifying the same. Non-specification of extraneous consideration may have been relevant for petitioner but considering the fact that the award of compensation under the sole head of ‘loss of love and affection’ was nearly 10 times the amount which is expected of a Tribunal to award, the said vague allegation of some ‘extraneous consideration’ cannot come in the way of the High Court to proceed and enquire into the existence or non-existence of extraneous consideration/oblique motive by way of disciplinary proceedings.”
The officer sought to have the charge sheet set aside, along with the statement of imputation, and had objected to the refusal to terminate the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him. The counsel representing the judicial officer argued that, “the decision taken by the Judicial Officer on the judicial side is immune from rigours of disciplinary proceedings on the administrative side.”
The case in question involved the award of compensation amounts of ₹20,69,688 and ₹18,25,400, respectively, in two Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cases solely under the category of “loss of love and affection.” However, the High Court reduced these amounts significantly to ₹2,50,000. While the judicial officer did not challenge this High Court order, the insurance company appealed against a related order, which had initially been dismissed. This appeal was taken to the Apex Court, where it was ultimately dismissed as well. In light of these developments, it was contended that since the judicial officer’s decision had effectively been upheld up to the highest judicial forum, there was no justification for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him on the administrative side.
After examining the submissions, the Court noted that “the only question that needs to be considered is as to whether in the given facts and circumstances as aforesaid, was it open for the High Court to proceed against the petitioner in departmental enquiry by issuance of the impugned charge-sheet.”
Upon scrutinizing the charge-sheet, the Court found that the allegations revolved around the judicial officer giving huge sums as compensation and had also raised concerns that these amounts were awarded due to some extraneous considerations, though it failed to specify what those considerations were.
Delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Nagu reiterated a key principle of service jurisprudence, stating that courts should refrain from interfering in disciplinary proceedings unless there is a demonstrable case of mala fides, the charge-sheet does not reveal any element of misconduct upon a straightforward reading, or its issuance contravenes constitutional or statutory provisions and said, “None of these factors exist in the present case.”
As a result, the Court saw no reason to disrupt the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the High Court. It, therefore, permitted the continuation of the departmental inquiry and directed that it be completed “as expeditiously as possible.”
Case Name: Sudhir Jiwan v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and another
Citation: 6014 of 2017 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal