Haryana judicial officer faces departmental action for “indiscipline”

The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered departmental action against a Haryana judicial services officer posted in Yamunanagar area for reported “judicial indiscipline”

The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered departmental action against a Haryana judicial services officer posted in Yamunanagar area for reported “judicial indiscipline”.

The petitioner was acquitted in a case following which he had filed an application for release of the deposited money. (iStock)

The high court bench of justice Manoj Bajaj, while referring the matter to chief justice of high court for initiating departmental action, observed that the court has no hesitation in holding that Yamunanagar chief judicial magistrate Arvind Kumar has passed the order in question by giving irrational reasons, “which not only shows his dearth of understanding of criminal jurisprudence and fundamental principles of law, but also reflects judicial indiscipline on his part, which amounts to grave misconduct and warrants departmental action against him”.

The court acted on the plea of one Puran Chand Sharma, who had challenged January 13, 2021 order of the Yamunanagar CJM, claiming that the order was passed in violation of the high court order of November 6, 2020 upon his application before the HC.

The petitioner was acquitted in a case following which he had filed an application for release of the deposited money. However, despite directions from high court the Yamunanagar CJM declined the prayer through an order in January 2021. The amount ₹1.1 lakh was deposited by the petitioner in an anticipatory bail matter in a 2012 FIR.

It was argued that once trial of the case was over and condition imposed at the time of granting the bail to the accused cannot be made binding upon him merely because the complainant in the FIR has appealed against the acquittal order. Notice had also not been issued by the appellate court to the petitioner, it was argued.

On appeal against the CJM’s order of turning down the plea for release of deposited amount, in February 2021, the court sought explanation from the Yamunanagar CJM.

State’s counsel had admitted that though the direction given by the high court was specific, the trial court proceeded to decline the request by considering the fact that the complainant has challenged the judgment of acquittal. It was admitted that the condition imposed by the high court while releasing the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, would come to an end on acquittal.

The court bench observed that in 2014, while granting bail to the petitioner, he was prohibited from seeking deposited money till the time case was decided. He applied for the same after the acquittal order. Thus, the high court direction of November 2020 was “crystal clear and did not require any interpretation, much less by the CJM,” the court observed.

The court also pointed out that the Yamunanagar CJM needlessly proceeded to interpret the November 2021 order “without any jurisdiction” in which the CJM had recorded that appeal against the acquittal judgment was not brought to the notice of high court. Hence, the amount should not be disbursed.

“This reasoning is patently absurd and illogical as the order of deposit of amount passed on February 25, 2014 was considered by this court while issuing the directions on November 6, 2020 for refund of the amount,” the court observed, adding that conditions imposed at the time of interim bail could not have been stretched beyond the conclusion of trial.

Referring to the response of judicial officer to explanation sought, the court observed that his response shows that “the officer felt honour in receiving the show-cause notice for violation of the order” and attempted to explain that he mistakenly refused to refund the amount.

“(He) regretted inconvenience caused to this court, as if, the officer failed to comply with the order of this court on administrative side, for example failure to send requisitioned record of a case, in time.”

“The expression and reasoning contained in the impugned order do not show that the disobedience of the direction by this court was erroneous as claimed in the explanation, thus, the same is not worth acceptance,” the court recorded allowing the plea for disbursal of deposited money and referred the matter to chief justice for departmental action.