In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court set aside disciplinary proceedings against its former Registrar General, Malaya Ranjan Dash. The proceedings were initiated due to his role in registering a suo motu writ petition without the Chief Justice's prior approval. The court's decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between administrative errors and gross misconduct, especially within the judiciary's internal functioning.
Background: The Controversial Suo Motu Registration
On February 26, 2021, while serving as the Registrar General, Dash received an order dated February 24, 2021, from a Division Bench of the High Court. The order, accompanied by a note-sheet from the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), directed the Registry to provide copies of the order and a brief to certain Senior Advocates appointed as Amicus Curiae. To comply with this directive, Dash endorsed the note-sheet, leading to the registration of a suo motu writ petition. However, this action was taken without informing or obtaining approval from the then Chief Justice, which later became the crux of the disciplinary action against him.
Disciplinary Proceedings: Allegations and Administrative Response
Following the registration of the suo motu case, the Chief Justice expressed displeasure over Dash's unilateral action. Consequently, Dash was transferred from his position as Registrar General to serve as a District Judge in a southern district of Odisha. He was also served with a show-cause notice, questioning the circumstances under which he registered the suo motu writ petition without the Chief Justice's knowledge or consent. The administrative side of the High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings, alleging that Dash had committed gross misconduct by bypassing established protocols.
Legal Examination: Court's Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra meticulously examined the circumstances surrounding the case. They noted that Dash acted in response to a direct order from a Division Bench, aiming to fulfill the court's directive promptly. The Bench observed that while Dash's failure to inform the Chief Justice might be considered an administrative oversight, it did not amount to gross misconduct. They emphasized that there was no evidence of Dash seeking personal gain or intentionally violating any specific rule or procedure.
The court stated:
"We are of the humble view that even if the action taken by the petitioner in approving the note sheet can be stated to be an error but to err is human. Making mistakes is a natural and expected part of being human and cannot be termed as gross misconduct, when there is no violation of definite Rule/Law/Procedure and there was nothing to gain by the petitioner by putting his career at risk at the displeasure of the Hon'ble Chief Justice."
Verdict: Exoneration and Implications
Based on their analysis, the Division Bench concluded that the disciplinary action against Dash was unwarranted. They set aside all charges, effectively exonerating him from any wrongdoing. The court's decision highlights the necessity of context when evaluating administrative decisions within the judiciary. It underscores that not all procedural deviations, especially those made in good faith to comply with judicial orders, should be construed as misconduct.
Conclusion: Balancing Protocol and Judicial Efficiency
The Orissa High Court's ruling serves as a precedent in distinguishing between administrative errors and intentional misconduct. It reinforces the principle that judicial officers must be allowed a reasonable margin for error, especially when acting in good faith to implement court orders. The decision also emphasizes the importance of clear communication and established protocols within the judiciary to prevent similar situations in the future.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.