Rajasthan High Court Overturns Mandatory Retirement Punishment for Former ADSJ, Saying It’s Unreasonable to Think a Judge Can’t Make Mistakes.
The Rajasthan High Court has overturned the compulsory retirement of Amar Singh, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge, stating it is unreasonable to think a judicial officer is incapable of making mistakes. The Court accepted Amar Singh’s Petition, which challenged the grounds for the disciplinary action taken against him for granting bail to a murder suspect, even after a previous bail request was denied and a transfer petition was still pending in the High Court. This inquiry resulted in his compulsory retirement. A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur, noted that the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court appeared to be divided, leading to a majority decision rather than a unanimous one. They concluded that there was no evidence presented in the inquiry to support the charges against Amar Singh, indicating a lack of proof. Thus, they determined that the disciplinary authority did not properly consider the explanation provided by the petitioner. They concluded that the punishment was not legally valid and should be annulled.
Advocate Anil Vyas represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Manoj Bhandari stood for the Respondents. Initially, the Petitioner denied bail to the accused, leading the High Court to also reject the bail request. Later, the Petitioner approved a second bail application for the accused, which the complainant contested. After the High Court revoked the bail, the complainant accused the Petitioner of judicial misconduct, claiming he overlooked the pending transfer petition when granting bail. An investigation was initiated against the Petitioner. The Registrar (Vigilance) carried out a preliminary inquiry and issued a memorandum of charges under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
The Petitioner argued that there were no significant changes in circumstances when he granted bail, stating he was following the timeline for handling bail requests. He claimed the complainant had caused delays in the sessions case and had not cooperated with the court. Additionally, the complainant failed to provide any stay order or evidence regarding the High Court’s ruling on the transfer petition. Following the inquiry report, the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court decided to impose compulsory retirement on the Petitioner under Rule 14(v) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958. This order was issued in 2015 by the Governor of Rajasthan.
The High Court stated that if an order is made without any corrupt intent, it cannot be used to start disciplinary action against a judicial officer. Everyone makes mistakes, and the Constitution outlines a system of Courts and a way to review decisions under Article 137. The Court emphasized that it is human to err, and it would be unreasonable to think that a judicial officer is incapable of making mistakes in their rulings. While a mistake might appear to be a serious error, the proper response is to correct it and maintain the Court’s dignity.
Furthermore, the Court noted that judicial ethics require officers to perform their duties promptly and ensure justice is served without delay. Simply knowing that a transfer petition is pending in the High Court does not justify the petitioner’s inaction regarding the second bail petition. As a result, the High Court approved the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:35400-DB) Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Anil Vyas
Respondents: Senior Advocate Manoj Bhandari; Advocate Aniket Tater
