In a landmark judgment, the Orissa High Court addressed the critical issue of superior judicial authorities passing adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers without providing them an opportunity to be heard. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, emphasized the paramount importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing, before making any derogatory observations that could tarnish a judicial officer's reputation.
The case centered around Malaya Ranjan Dash, a distinguished judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge (Super-time Scale), who served as the Registrar General of the Orissa High Court. On February 26, 2021, Dash received an order from a Division Bench dated February 24, 2021, accompanied by an official note-sheet from the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). The note-sheet requested Dash to approve the registration of a suo motu writ petition to comply with the Division Bench's directive to supply copies of its order to certain Senior Advocates appointed as Amicus Curiae.
Acting promptly, Dash endorsed the note-sheet and facilitated the registration of the suo motu case. However, the then Chief Justice expressed displeasure over Dash's actions, alleging that he had proceeded without obtaining prior approval or bringing the matter to the Chief Justice's attention. Consequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated against Dash on charges of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, administrative indiscipline, and failure to maintain absolute honesty and integrity. An Inquiry Committee was constituted to investigate these allegations.
The Inquiry Committee found Dash guilty of the charges, leading to adverse entries being made in his Confidential Character Roll (CCR). Feeling aggrieved, Dash challenged the adverse entries, arguing that they were made without affording him an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
The Orissa High Court, upon meticulous examination of the case, observed that superior authorities should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures, derogatory remarks, or scathing criticism against subordinate judicial officers without providing them an opportunity to explain their conduct. The Court emphasized that such actions, taken unilaterally, are in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and can cause serious prejudice to the affected officer.
The Court further noted that the principles of natural justice are not mere formalities but are fundamental to ensuring fairness and transparency in administrative actions. The right to be heard is an essential component of these principles, and any deviation from this norm can lead to arbitrary and unjust outcomes.
In Dash's case, the Court found that the adverse entries in his CCR were made without providing him an opportunity to present his side of the story. This omission rendered the entries legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the adverse entries, thereby upholding the sanctity of the principles of natural justice.
This judgment serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the necessity for superior judicial authorities to exercise caution and fairness when evaluating the conduct of subordinate officers. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of its officers and ensuring that administrative actions are conducted with integrity and respect for due process.
In conclusion, the Orissa High Court's decision in this case reaffirms the foundational principles of natural justice within the judicial administrative framework. It highlights the imperative for transparency, fairness, and the right to be heard, ensuring that the judiciary remains a bastion of justice not only for the public but also within its own ranks.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.