Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs Judges Inquiry Committee & Anr

2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The acts of misbehaviour allegedly committed by the petitioner were enumerated in the notice, which was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in support of the allegations. For the sake of convenient reference, the allegations contained in the notice of motion are reproduced below:

The explanatory note appended to the notice of motion contained detailed facts which, in the opinion of the signatories of the motion, supported the acts of misbehaviour alleged against the petitioner. 4

5. After preliminary scrutiny of the material placed before it which included documents summoned from Government departments and agencies/instrumentalities of the State and statements of some persons recorded in the context of the allegation made against the petitioner, the Committee issued notice dated 16.3.2011 requiring him to appear on 9.4.2011 to answer the charges. The notice was accompanied by a statement of charges and lists of documents and witnesses. Each of the 14 charges enumerated in the notice was supported by specific grounds with minute details and documents.

7. The applications made by the petitioner to the Committee were disposed of by two separate orders dated 24.4.2011. By one order, the Committee virtually rejected the petitioner's request for supply of the documents specified in paragraph 4 of the first application. The Committee observed that documents mentioned at paragraph 4 (g.1), (g.2), (g.3), (g.6), (g.16) and paragraph 4(j) and 4(k) are not available with it and the material on which the charges were based had already been supplied to the petitioner. The relevant portions of the order passed in relation to the petitioner's demand for supply of documents are reproduced below:

Regarding sub-paragraph (h), if any additional document/ material/ information or an additional witness is proposed to be used/ examined in support of the charges, the list of additional documents/witnesses would be supplied to the applicant in due course.

The information sought in sub-paragraphs (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m) are prima facie frivolous and are rejected.

By the second order, the Committee rejected the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner to its jurisdiction and the procedure adopted by it for framing the charges. The relevant portions of the second order are extracted below:

The Committee also held that the plea of bias raised against Shri P.P. Rao was an afterthought and was untenable. We are not adverting to the reasons recorded by the Committee for arriving at this conclusion because the petitioner had challenged the appointment of Shri P.P. Rao as member of the Committee in a separate petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 217 of 2011, which has since been disposed of.

(b) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts; and

(c) one shall be a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman, a distinguished jurist:

(2) The presiding officer of the Inquiry Committee shall-

(2) If the report of the Inquiry Committee contains a finding that the Judge referred to in sub-rule (1) is not guilty of any misbehaviour or does not suffer from any incapacity, then the Central Government shall reimburse such Judge to the extent of such part of the costs of his defence as the Inquiry Committee may recommend."

24. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.