HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIW: HON'BLESHRI JAGDISH BHALLA,Ag. CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI DILIP RAOSAHEB DEStflVIUKH, J. APPELLANT PETmONER RESPONDENTS WrttAppeal No. 113 of 2007 Gopal Singh Uikey, son of Mahadev Singh Uikey, aged about 56 years, Ocoupation- Tahsildar, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Seoretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, RAIPUR (C.G.). 2. The Collector, Uttar Bastar Kanker, District LUar Bastar Kanker (C.G). ^- <^ Writ Appeal under Section 2 of the Chhattisaafh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division BenchlAct. 2006 read with Rule 157 (10) (a) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court Rules, 2005 Present: Shri Rajesh Pandey, counsel for the appellant. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Deputy Advooate General for the State. ORALORDER (Passed onSS" June, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Jagdish Bhalla, Ag. C..1. The appellant had challenged order of suspension in contemplation of enquiry before the Hon'ble Singte Judge in WP (S) No.2661 of 2007 which was dismissed on 02.05.2007. The suspension order does not amount to punishment. It can only be challengedon two grounds; flrstly, on the ground ofviolation of law and secondly on strong ma/aftfes. As far as violationof law Is concerned, there was no allegation on the part of the appellant, hov/ever, as far as mala fides are concerned, it hgs been submitted that because of some Dharna pradarshan, the appellant has been suspended. lilL lt i i ii i ai.2 L-E", "s.- Jf' However, 1 have.been informed that charge-sheet contalning three charges havebeen served uponthe appellant/petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submlts that the appellant/petitioner has been suspended fpr the oharges relating to his work performance white he was functioning on thequasi judiclal side. Aocordingly, it has been urged that no action can be taken agajnst the appellant on the said ground. Learned counsel for theappellant has relied upon , para 12 of the judgment of Hon'bte the Apex Court in the matter RamesA ChaniSer Sm^fVersus High Court ofAllah^ati andanottser reportedin(2007^4 SCC 247,which reads as under: , . "12. This Court on several ocoasions has . disapproved the practice of initiation of disciplinary prooeedings against officere of the subordinate judlciary merely because the Judgments/orders passed by them are wrong. The appellate 'and revisional oourts have been established and given powers to set aside such ordere. The higher courts after hearing the appeal may modify or set aside erroneous judgments of the lower cpurts. While taking disoipltnary action based on judioial ordere, the High Gourt musttake extra oareand caution." Interestingly, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State also relies onthe paras 17 &20 ofthe same judgment. The said paras readas under: . "17. InZtinftffao Bhikaji Nagarkw Vs ifnlon of Indla fl9S7 rsCG409;this'Courtheid that • wrong exerclse of junsdlotion by a quaSj^iudlcial authority or mistake of law or wrong interpFetation of law cannot be the basis for initiating disciplinary proceeding. Of course, if tlie^judicial officer conducted in a manner as would refleGt oh his Feputatioh or integrity or good faith or there is a prima faeie material to show recklesshess or. misoonduct in dlscharge of his duties or he bad ^ Ml i ili ' •'-v'::^ -'. "T-"r"' aagaK5 acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or had passed an order actuated by a corrupt motive, the High Court by virtue of its power under Article 235 of the Constitutjon may exercise its supervisoiy jurisdiction. Neverthetess, under such cireumstarices it should be kept in mind that the judges at all levels have to administer justioe without fear or favour. Fearlessness and maintenanoe of judioial independence are very' essential for an efRcaGiousjudicial system. Maklng adverse comments agalnst subordinate judiofal officers and subjeoting them to severe disciplinary proceecfings would ultimately harm the judicial system at the grassroot level." °20. As the Full Court alone is the ultimate competent authority to consider all diseiplinary mattere and has indeed taken the deoision impugned before us, we remit the matter to the Full Court to consider afresh the question of imposltion of approprfate punishment on the appellant." The faots and ciroumstances ofthe ease relied upon bythe appellant are very interesting, wherein the Full Court of Allahabad Hjgh Court had taken a decision to punish the petjtioner by stopping two increments for the wrong committed by him on the judicial side. Aggrieved .by the same, the petittoner had filed a writ petition. The Diyision Benoh of Allahabad High Court instead of upholding or refusing the vfew taken by the FullCourt has reverted the petitioner from the cadre ofAdditional District Judge on which he had worked for 8 years to the cadreof Clvil Judge. Aggrievecf by the said order the petitioner approached Hon'ble the Apex Court t-earned Deputy Advocate General has plaoecl before us the reievant records containing oharge sheets. Besides one charge i.e. Charge No.1 with regard to the wrong committed by/the petitioner whiteworking on the quasi judicial side, the other oharge was while performing duties on administrative side. . the L( subbu From perusal of the above paras; we find force in the argument of learned Deputy Advocate General Shri NK ^rawal and we are of the oonsidered opinion that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the Apex Court remanded the mattertothe Full Cpurt, which is competent enough to deal with the matter. Besidesthe above arguments in thiswrit appeal, we have perused the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge. Exoept one ground that the petitioner has passed oertain orders on the quasi judicial side and has been suspended because of Dharnapradarshan, no other ground has been argued by counsel for the petitioner/appellant before the Hon'ble Single Judge who by a reasoned order dismissed the writ petition and those reasons are not under challenge in this appeal. We find that, case of mala ffctes was not pressed before Hon'ble Single Judge. WeareinagreementWiththeviewtakenbytheHon'bleSingleJudge. In these circumstances, there is neither any violation of law, nor mala fidesto warrant this Court to show any interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has requested that enquiry in the matter be expedited. We find it to be a reasonabte request. Accordingly, it is provided that the appellart shall submit his reply within 1 5 days as agreed by his counsel and thereafter, let the enquiry be completed within a period of slx weeks with a direotion to the appellant to oooperate in the said enquiry. Sd//- \ ' -;, yActing ChiefJustlce Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge i••^:'-*-&=.;^-^.^;^.^•^^l'-'ff^ •-; :^:~;.SL/'':^'