‘Supreme Court Stays Inquiry, Issues Notice To Uttarakhand HC Over ADJ’s Plea Of Non- Admission Of Evidence In Disciplinary Proceedings
(Judicial Quest News Network)
Supreme Court in a SLP filed by Additional district Judge Kanwar Amninder Singh has issued a notice to the Uttarakhand High Court for non-admission in evidence of a case diary in his disciplinary inquiry, the inquiry officer being a sitting judge of the High Court.
The SLP file through Advocate Sachin Sharma.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as the civil judge (junior division)/judicial magistrate, Ist class in the State of the Uttarakhand in September 2011. When he was posted as Ist Additional District Judge, Haridwar, a complaint was lodged against him for the incidents allegedly happened before his appointment. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the High Court. A charesheet was thereafter issued to him and a sitting Judge of this Court was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is clear that the Presenting Officer has produced all the witnesses as per the charge sheet. During the course of defence evidence, the delinquent officer submitted many applications as mentioned in the impugned orders, but the Enquiry Officer allowed the prayer partly. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer has rejected the applications, while by the same orders it was directed that if the delinquent officer wishes to adduce his evidence, he may adduce same. The respondent fairly submitted that as per the record, these documents were already produced by the delinquent officer which were not admitted by the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer rejected the application for summoning the original record to prove the genuineness thereof in defence
The Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat also stayed the inquiry being proceeded with.
Since some of the documents which were filed by the petitioner in an on-going departmental proceeding, for admission and denial, were not admitted by the presiding officer. Being aggrieved by the same, on 24.11.2020, the Petitioner filed the application before the Enquiry Officer that. Inter Alia, the Original Documents i.e., copy made from the original case diary provided and received under RTI mar be treated as admissible in law and exhibit be mark on the said document.
the aforesaid applications were erroneously rejected by the Enquiry Officer on the same day vide order dated 24.11.2020. That thereafter being aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Learned Enquiry officer
wherein he rejected to take these documents as admissible in defence, the Petitioner filed Applications dated 09.01.2021 to call on witnesses who can prove the admissibility of those documents, however the same was also rejected on the same date vide order dated 09.01.2021. That being aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2020 and 09.01.2021, by of Writ Petition No (S/B)
No. 53 of 2021 the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court, wherein after hearing at length the Hon’ble High Court observed that one more opportunity be given.
it is pertinent to mention that despite heavily arguing on the admissibility of case dairy dated 06.04.2018 in Crime No. 58 of 2018 PS: SIDCUL, which
is a certified copy received by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act., the Hon’ble High Court refrained from passing any order and thereby rejected the admissibility of said document. Hence being only aggrieved by the non-admissibility of the said document the Petitioner is filing the present Special Leave Petition. That here it is pertinent to mention that while non
admitting the Case dairy dated 06.04.2018 in Crime No. 58 of 2018 PS: SIDCUL provided and received under Right to Information Act. vide letter No. 382 dated 24.09.2020, Hon’ble High Court ought to have consider the fact that the document/case dairy was Provided by the Public Information Officer in the Office of Joint Director (Prosecution) Haridwar has been provided by rightful Keeper of the case dairy i.e., the Office of Joint Director (Prosecution) at Haridwar.
The petitioner continues to urge that with the passage of time it became clear that the Inquiry officer has a soft corner, affinity and affection towards Ms. Deepali Sharma. that Ms. Deepali Sharma
was unaware of the fact that the Petitioner got case diary dated 06th April 2018 through RTI till 04th November 2020. It is only after the filing of said case diary by the petitioner as defence document, that Ms. Deepali Sharma
came to know about it. It makes it abundantly clear that someone associated with the departmental proceedings against petitioner disclosed the filing of case diary dated 6th April 2018 to Ms. Deepali Sharma. However, Ms. Deepali Sharma has been dismissed from Judicial Service vide notification dated 21-10-2020.
The Supreme Court had in October last year refused to interfere on the pleas of an Additional District Judge in the state of Uttarakhand for a Change of the Inquiry Officer (a siting judge of the National High Court) examining the charges against him, on the ground that latter was also the Chairman of Committee which had recommended a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner.
we clarify that the point raised by the petitioner before the High Court relating to bias is left open. In case, the need arises, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground of bias, after the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings.
The High Court instead of issuing formal notice, had just asked the Standing Counsel to take my petition for a change the defence and started proceedings exparte I may be good or bad but can I not ask HC to change the inquiry officer?
It is prayed in the Writ Petition
(I) Issue a writ order or direction, in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 24th November 2020 and 9th January 2021 passed
by the Hon’ble Enquiry Officer (Contained as Annexure No.l&2 to the writ petition) and the applications filed by the Petitioner on 24th November
2020 and 9th Januarys, 2021 may kindly be allowed.
(II) Issue a writ order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Enquiry- Officer to permit the Petitioner to summon the
witnesses for proving the Documents on record 179 referred to in the applications dated 24-11-2020 and 9/1/2021.
(III) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(IV) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
