NDLI: Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Judicial service misconduct’ Service Law
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Service Law: Judicial service – Allegation against appellant judicial officer that while posted as ADJ, she had decided the land acquisition reference illegally and against all judicial norms and propriety awarding to the claimants the amount of compensation at an unduly high rate which led to inference that she was actuated by extraneous considerations and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion of duty and committed misconduct under U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956 – Enquiry Committee held that the charges were proved for, the errors were apparent in both cases which were such shocking blunders that they could not be attributed to mere misjudgment and consequently were proved to be deliberate – Accordingly, order of dismissal from service passed – Appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order of dismissal before High Court – On appeal, held: It is the decision making process of delinquent officer and not the end result of the judicial process which could be subjected to disciplinary action – It is a matter of record that at the time when the High Court was seized of this matter, writ petitions against both of the appellant’s land acquisition judgments were dismissed by its coordinate benches – High Court nevertheless, rightly observed that dismissal of writ petitions against the appellant’s orders did not serve as vindication or confirmation of her orders – Indeed, as correctly noted by the High Court, the scope of judicial review under Art.226 is limited – The standards to be met prior to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction are very high, and there needs to be gross substantive injustice through the conclusion, glaring irregularities in procedure or the need to resolve important questions of law for a writ court to overturn the Reference Court’s order – Hence, dismissal of writ petition merely signifies the failure to demonstrate any of these high standards, in a particular case, and not the endorsement of the orders passed by a subordinate authority – However, the facts of the instant case are distinct – This Court, in fact, entered into the merits of one of the allegedly erroneous orders – Not only was the judgment affirmed, but rather the compensation was further enhanced – It, therefore, can no longer be stated that the appellant’s order was wrong in conclusion – This fact is significant as it establishes that the increase in compensation by the appellant was not abhorrent – There is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on the part of the appellant – Instead, the very basis of the finding of ‘misbehaviour’ is the end result itself, which as per the High Court was so shocking that it gave rise to a natural suspicion as to the integrity and honesty of the appellant – Although this might be right in a vacuum, however, given how the end result itself has been untouched by superior courts and instead in one of the two cases, the compensation only increased, no such inference can be made – Thus, case against the appellant not made out – Order of dismissal set aside – Constitution of India – Art.226 – Judicial service.Judicial Officers: Judicial officers must aspire and adhere to a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity – Also mere suspicion cannot constitute ‘misconduct’ – Any ‘probability’ of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, even though the standard of proof would obviously not be at par with that in a criminal trial.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai Honble Mr. Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 292
Petitioner	Sadhna Chaudhary
Respondent	State Of U.p. & Anr.
SCR	[2020] 4 S.C.R. 888
Judgement Date	2020-03-06
Case Number	2077

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.

P.c. Joshi Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

The State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. N. Gangaraj

State of U.p. and Anr. Vs. Ram Kishore and Anr.

State of U.p and Anr. Vs. Jogendra Singh and Anr.

V.d. Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. and Anr.

Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.

P.c. Joshi Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

The State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. N. Gangaraj

State of U.p. and Anr. Vs. Ram Kishore and Anr.

State of U.p and Anr. Vs. Jogendra Singh and Anr.

V.d. Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. and Anr.

Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.