IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20238 of 2001 Between: M.Rama Murthy Varma s/o Late Sri Nagaiah Varma Senior Civil Judge Kothapeta East Godavari ..... PETITIONER AND The High Court of A.P represented by the Registrar (Vigilance) Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceeding ROC.No.1044/98/ Vigilance Cell dated 13/01/2000 including proceeding ROC.No. 1044/98/ Vigilance Cell dated 16/03/2001 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent: MR.C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice) Petitioner while working as III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam was sought to be departmentally proceeded with for the following charge: “That you, Sri M.Rama Murthy Varma, while working as III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam in a suit O.S.No.263 of 1997 on the file of III Addl. District Munsif’s Court, Visakhapatnam filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of vacant site of Ac.0-73 cents covered by S.No.25/2, temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.162/97 on 14-2-1997 after setting the respondents ex parte; that subsequently the petitioners/plaintiffs through another Advocate filed an application I.A.No.324 of 1997 on 10-3-1997 requesting the court to order recovery of possession of 1719 sq. yards out of 3533 sq. yds (0.73 cents) of the plaint schedule property from the alleged agent of respondents/defendants; that though no note was put up on the said application by the Bench Clerk, you heard the petitioners/plaintiffs’ counsel on 12-3-1997 and numbered the said application and later on 4-4-1997 you set the respondents ex parte and allowed the petition by passing a docket order without issuing any notice to the respondents and signed the Hukum Warrant prepared on 1-5-1997 though no decree in the said I.A.No.324 of 1997 was prepared authorizing the Amin to take over the possession of the property from the alleged agent of respondents with an oblique motive and for extraneous consideration which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” The basis for framing the charge was the report of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam. After the aforementioned charge was framed, the petitioner was called upon to file his written statement, which the petitioner duly submitted denying the charge and pleading not guilty. The petitioner denied that he had misconducted within the meaning of Rule 3 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner justified the judicial order passed by him in I.A.No.162 of 1997 and I.A.No.327 of 1997 in O.S.No.263 of 1997. Instead of proceeding further with the matter, the respondent proceeded to impose minor punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved, review application was filed, which was also dismissed. The order imposing punishment of withholding of one increment is being challenged in this petition on the ground that a judicial order was passed by the petitioner, which, if wrong, would be subject to appeal, review or revision. In the absence of there being anything on record that this order was passed with an oblique motive or for extraneous consideration, the order imposing punishment is bad in law. There is nothing on record to suggest or even to give an indication that the order in I.A.No.327 of 1997 in O.S.No.263 of 1997 was passed with an oblique motive or for extraneous consideration. In the absence of this motive, it is an order passed by a judicial officer in exercise of his jurisdiction as such and any order passed on judicial side would be subject to appeal, review or revision as per the law and for that reason, petitioner could not have been proceeded with departmentally for being imposed any punishment since such an order would not attract the provisions of the Conduct Rules. In ISWAR CHAND JAIN vs HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [AIR 1988 SC 1395], the Supreme Court held that if the orders are passed by a judicial officer without there being any corrupt motive, the same should be overlooked by the High Court and proper guidance should be provided to the Judicial Officers. We would also notice the fact that the entire proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint received from local advocates. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had given a word of caution that under the Constitution of India, the High Court has control over the subordinate judiciary. While exercising its control, it is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect the judicial officers. An honest and strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries in the subordinate courts and if complaints are entertained on trifling matters or relating to judicial orders, no judicial officer would feel protected and it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties in an honest and independent manner. An independent and honest judiciary is sine qua non for the Rule of Law. It is therefore imperative that the High Court should also take steps to protect honest officers by ignoring ill-conceived and ill-motivated complaints. Nobody was aggrieved by the order, which was made subject matter of the charge. Had somebody been aggrieved by the order, the same would have been challenged on judicial side. There were no remarks put on record or brought to the notice of the petitioner that there were some extraneous considerations or either a bad motive in passing such an order, in the absence of which, the charge itself ought to have been dropped. Punishment imposed thus cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with all consequential benefits. ___________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ 29-12-2004 _____________________ M.NARAYANA REDDY, J tvr To 1. The High Court of A.P represented by the Registrar (Vigilance) Hyderabad 2 The Section Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Section Incharge, Legal Cell, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 2 CD copies.