# R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN

- **Citation:** [1998] 3 S.C.R. 352
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-05-13
- **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha, B.N. Kirpal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-c-sood-v-high-court-of-judicature-at-rajasthan-16321
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Service Law :
Departmental Enquiry-Complaint against a member of the State Higher
C Judicial Service-Some of the complaints made by persons having grudge
against the officer when he had acted on administrative side-Allegations
were vague and general-Held, such complaints did not merit serious
consideration-Initiation of disciplinary proceedings also not proper.
Departmental Enquiry-Judicial Review-Grounds for-High Court,
D acting on the administrative side, initiating proceedings against a member
of the State Higher Judicial Service-Writ petition challenging the initiation
of departmental enquiry filed before Supreme Court-Held, the initiation of
disciplinary proceedings amounted to victimisation and therefore quashedJudiciary-Awarding of costs-When justified-Administrative LawE Colourable exercise of power-Discussed
Preliminary enquiry preceding the departmental enquiry-Purpose a/-
Held, normally enquiry committees are set up to ascertain facts-However,
on facts of the case, found that the committee was set up for collecting a
menageries of witnesses who had a grudge against the petitioner-Such
p
approach criticised by this Court-Report of enquiry committed held to be
biased-Administrative Law-Bias.
Constitution of India:
Articles 235 and 227-Rules of the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, 1952, Chapter 111, Rules J5(d) to (g) and 32(2)-Superintendence
G of High Court over subordinate courts-Procedure for exercising controlReference of Full Court-When not necessary-Complaint against a judicial
officer-Chief Justice got a preliminary enquiry conducted-Genuineness of
. the complaint not established-Thereafter it was decided not. to proceed
against the petitioner-Held, Chief Justice was competent under R. 32(2) to
H take decision at his level-Reference to Full Court could have been necessary
352
.. _
'
-
1
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
353
under R. l 5(d) to (g) only if the Chief Justice was of the view that disciplinary A
action was called for-Reopening of the case subsequently by reference to
Full Court was not justified-More so when the complaint was not supported
by an affidavit as required by Chief Justice's order-However, the question
'whether for good or sufficient reasons the Full Court can ever overrule or
recall an eariier decision of the Chief Justice' kept open Superintendence of B
High Court over subordinate courts-Procedure for such contra/-
Administrative directions given by the Chief Justice directing that no
cognizance of a complaint against a judicial officer be taken unless it is duly
supported by an affidavit-Full Court took cognizance of the Complaint
ignoring such direction of the Chief Justice-Held, there was no reason why
such order of the Chief Justice should have been ignored-Service law-- C
Departmental Enquiry Article 32-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to enforce
fundamental rights of its citizen-Unfair exercise of Disciplinary power
exercised by High Court on the administrative side against a member of State
Higher Judicial Service-Held : initiation of proceedings was not bonafide-Proceedings quashed exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 32Service Law-Departmental Enquiry.
D
Judiciary-Judicial forum-High Court-Acting on its administrative
side-Held, fairness and objectivity expected from it even if acting° on its
administrative side-High Court held to be acted in the manner which could
only be termed as arbitrary and unwarranted.
The petitioner had joined the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and
w.e.f. 01.07.1989 to 01.02.1994, the petitionet·was posted as Registrar of
High Court. Departmental proceedings were initiated on the ground of a
mistake in inviting applications to fill up the vacancies in the Higher Judicial
Service by way of direct recruitment, there being an error in the publication
E
of advertisement in mentioning the relevant cut off date as 01.01.1995 p
instead ofOl.01.1994. The Committee of two Judges suggested the matter
be placed before the Chief Justice for taking

## Text

_Characters 0–39,941 of 59,374. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39941 for what follows._

A
R.C. SOOD
v.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN
MAY 13, 1998
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]
Service Law :
Departmental Enquiry-Complaint against a member of the State Higher
C Judicial Service-Some of the complaints made by persons having grudge
against the officer when he had acted on administrative side-Allegations
were vague and general-Held, such complaints did not merit serious
consideration-Initiation of disciplinary proceedings also not proper.
Departmental Enquiry-Judicial Review-Grounds for-High Court,
D acting on the administrative side, initiating proceedings against a member
of the State Higher Judicial Service-Writ petition challenging the initiation
of departmental enquiry filed before Supreme Court-Held, the initiation of
disciplinary proceedings amounted to victimisation and therefore quashedJudiciary-Awarding of costs-When justified-Administrative LawE Colourable exercise of power-Discussed
Preliminary enquiry preceding the departmental enquiry-Purpose a/-
Held, normally enquiry committees are set up to ascertain facts-However,
on facts of the case, found that the committee was set up for collecting a
menageries of witnesses who had a grudge against the petitioner-Such
p
approach criticised by this Court-Report of enquiry committed held to be
biased-Administrative Law-Bias.
Constitution of India:
Articles 235 and 227-Rules of the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, 1952, Chapter 111, Rules J5(d) to (g) and 32(2)-Superintendence
G of High Court over subordinate courts-Procedure for exercising controlReference of Full Court-When not necessary-Complaint against a judicial
officer-Chief Justice got a preliminary enquiry conducted-Genuineness of
. the complaint not established-Thereafter it was decided not. to proceed
against the petitioner-Held, Chief Justice was competent under R. 32(2) to
H take decision at his level-Reference to Full Court could have been necessary
352
.. _
'
-
1
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
353
under R. l 5(d) to (g) only if the Chief Justice was of the view that disciplinary A
action was called for-Reopening of the case subsequently by reference to
Full Court was not justified-More so when the complaint was not supported
by an affidavit as required by Chief Justice's order-However, the question
'whether for good or sufficient reasons the Full Court can ever overrule or
recall an eariier decision of the Chief Justice' kept open Superintendence of B
High Court over subordinate courts-Procedure for such contra/-
Administrative directions given by the Chief Justice directing that no
cognizance of a complaint against a judicial officer be taken unless it is duly
supported by an affidavit-Full Court took cognizance of the Complaint
ignoring such direction of the Chief Justice-Held, there was no reason why
such order of the Chief Justice should have been ignored-Service law-- C
Departmental Enquiry Article 32-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to enforce
fundamental rights of its citizen-Unfair exercise of Disciplinary power
exercised by High Court on the administrative side against a member of State
Higher Judicial Service-Held : initiation of proceedings was not bonafide-Proceedings quashed exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 32Service Law-Departmental Enquiry.
D
Judiciary-Judicial forum-High Court-Acting on its administrative
side-Held, fairness and objectivity expected from it even if acting° on its
administrative side-High Court held to be acted in the manner which could
only be termed as arbitrary and unwarranted.
The petitioner had joined the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and
w.e.f. 01.07.1989 to 01.02.1994, the petitionet·was posted as Registrar of
High Court. Departmental proceedings were initiated on the ground of a
mistake in inviting applications to fill up the vacancies in the Higher Judicial
Service by way of direct recruitment, there being an error in the publication
E
of advertisement in mentioning the relevant cut off date as 01.01.1995 p
instead ofOl.01.1994. The Committee of two Judges suggested the matter
be placed before the Chief Justice for taking suitable action who in turn
directed the matter be put up before the Full Court by circulation. The two
judges Committee, constituted by the Full Court on 21.10.1994 resolved that
a departmental enquiry be initiated against the petitioner and he should be
placed under suspension. On 21.10.1994, the High Court suspended the G
petitioner and decided to hold a departmental enquiry. On 24.10.1994, this
. suspension was challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition and
this Court issued a notice on 7.11.1994.
The second set of facts culminating the passing of the second resolution
of the Full Court on 5/6th January, 1995 instituting a regular departmental H
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control
& Appeal) Rules, 1958, started on a complaint of one VS received by Justice
Kon or before 27.I0.1994. This complaint had been circulated amongst all
the then Judges of the High Court and in respect of which order was passed
by the then Chief Justice and the matter was closed on 31.01.1994. No
explanation was given as to how Justice K got this complaint when he was
B · transferred to the High Court on 28.04.1994 whereas the complaint of VS
was of September 1993. Suddenly on the High Court record, by way of letter
dated 27 . .I0.1994, Justice K forwarded this old complaint of VS to the then
Chief Justice. The Chief Justice made an endorsement the same day, showing
the sense of urgency. First Office note was that written on 09.11.I 994 after
C issuance of notice by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The Full Court fixed the matter on 30.11.I 994 after the decision of this
Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 24.l l.1994. Hence this
writ petition.
It was contended by the petitioner that with the passing of the order
D dated 31.01.1994. by the then Chief Justice, the complaint of VS stood
disposed off and the same could not be reopened by the Full Court or the then
Chief Justice of the High Court when there were no attenuating
circumstances by way of fresh evidence or material which would warrant a
fresh look in the matter, and that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings
E by issuing a charge-sheet because stale and an after thought and thus tainted
with malice and such proceedings were liable to be quashed as being ma/a
fide and malicious in law.
Allowing the writ petition, this Court
F
HELD : 1. Normally, enquiry committees are set up in order to ascertain
correct facts. However, there is a situation where a Committee consisting of
a local Judge and two transferred Judges was set up with the local Judge
sitting alone and collecting a menagerie of witnesses who had a grudge
against the petitioner and thus were sure to depose against him. Some of
these witnesses were those who had not sent ~ny complaint against the
G petitioner prior to 30-11-1994 and it is only the local Judge who, wanting
to gather statements against the petitioner, could have known whom to
approach and call for evidence. Of the two transferred Judges who were the
members of the Committee, one never took part in any proceedings when
evidence was recorded yet he signed the report dated 4-1-1995. The other
Transferee Judge is the person who set the ball rolling with his conjuring
H up VS's complaint which had originally been circulated long before his
<>
."(
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
355
transfer to Rajasthan. The respondent's counsel was unable to explain as to A
how this complaint was conveniently placed in the hand of Justice K. It is
"
evident that there was a deliberate design to bring to a premature end the
·-'
judicial career of the petitioner, whose name, at that time, was being actively
considered for elevation as High Court Judge. This is.apparent from the fact
that in the resolutions dated 30-11-1994 and 5-1-1995 it was resolved by the B
Full Court that the President of India and the Chief Justice of India should
be informed about the holding of the departmental proceedings against the
petitioner. Acting on the basis of the Committee's biased report, the Full
Court continued in a similar vein and proceeded to nail the petitioner by
taking a decision that lacked objectively. Apparently stung by the judgment
dated 22.11.1994 of this Court it retaliated by launching a fresh set of c
charges against the petitioner clearly with a view to ruin his judicial career.
There is no doubt that the action taken by the Court was not bona fide and
amounts to victimisation. This is certainly not expected from a judicial
forum, least of all the High Court, which is expected to discharge its
administrative duties as fairly and objectively as it is required to discharge
D
its judicial functions. [370-G-H; 371-A-D)
2.1. Another error, which was committed, was that the Court in its
.....
1
resolution of 30-11-1994 took into consideration the complaint of VS even
though the same was not supported by an affidavit. The Chief Justice had by
his order dated 12-5-1994, decided that no complaint should be entertained E
unless it is supported by an affidavit. Though it was an administrative order
it was passed by the Chief Justice in exercise of powers conferred on him
by Rule 32(2). There was no reason as to why this order should have been
ignored and the complaint of VS entertained even though it was not supported
by an affidavit. The resolution of 30-11-1994 also states that some of the
r
Judges have received fresh complaints against the petitioner making serious F
...
charges of corruption. No particulars are indicated as to which complaints
were received by which Judge. It is evident from the wordings of these
minutes that what those complaints were not even known to all the members
of the Full Court when they passed the Resolution on 30-11-1994. There is
no doubt when a valid decision had been taken by the then Chief Justice on G
31-1-1994 exonerating the petitioner, there was no valid reason in law for
the Full court to revoke that decision. [366-C-E]
..
2.2. There is no material, which could justify the initiation of the
impugned action. The allegations against the petitioner were generally vague
or were such which did not show that the petitioner had committed any H
356
SUPREME COURT ;{£PORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A irregularity leave alone illegality. For example one of the main allegations
against the petitioner was of his having committed irregularity in obtaining
loan for constructing a house. Apart from the fact that this loan was sanctioned
by the then Chief Justice, the petitioner has with the assistance of the loan
constructed. the house and is living there and the loan amount already stands
B
returned. In such circumstances, for the Committee to come to a conclusion
that the disciplinary proceeding sho11ld be initiated was clearly unwarranted.
[372-E-FJ
3. Apart from the non-judicious manner in which the three-Judge
Committee conducted the enquiry, the sequence of events which bears
repetition shows that being piqued with this Court's Judgement quashing the
c first departmental enquiry the High Court, with the few functionaries playing
an active role, left no stone unturned with a view to victimize the petitioner.
The fact that it is only on 30.ll.1994, after the decision of this Court on
22.11.1994, that the Full Court fixed up the matter lends credence to the
petitioner's submission that the dates which appear on record may not be
D
real. This is more so when none of the documents in the form of complaints
allegedly received by the Judges bear any endorsement as the receipt of the
same. It is obvious that a copy of complaint of September 1993 of VS was
handed over to Justice K, who was transferred to High Court on 28.04.1994,
by some one who was interested in harming the petitioner and thereupon
the second round of action against the petitioner commenced with Justice K
E being made one of the members of the three Judges Committee.
(372-G; 370-D-E[
R.C. Sood v. High Court of Rajasthan ( 1994 [ Supp. 3 SCC 711, relied
on.
4. There is no manner of doubt that there was a complete lack of bona
F fide on the part of the High Court when it decided on 05.01.1995 to institute
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. On this ground alone the
petitioner is entitled to succeed. [370-F)
5.1. The proceedings of the meeting of the Full Court are normally
supposed to be confidential. How is it then that a number of complaints were
G received against the petitioner at about that time, i.e. 30.11.1994. Some of
the complaints on the file of th!! Three Judges Committee are undated and
it is not known when they were received. On two complaints the date is 2611-1994, but they do not have the supporting affidavits. It is, therefore,
possible that these complaints may have been ante-dated specially when none
of these complaints bear an endorsement signifying the date of their receipt.
H The complaint of Mis dated 30-11-1994 but the affidavit supporting is dated
..
...
,
'
""(
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (KIRPAL, J.]
357
1-12-1994. There is no doubt that all these complaints were procured solely A
..t
with a view to show that apart from the original complaint of VS there were
other complaints against the petitioner which represented new material
justifying fresh enquiry. These complaints, some of them being made by
discredited persons containing vague and general allegations could not be
regarded as fresh material which required the initiating of disciplinary B
proceedings. The said complaints did not merit any serious consideration
and reference to them by the High Court was uncalled for. The sentiments
expressed by this court while allowing the petitioner's writ petition on an
earlier occasion stands belied and notwithstanding such observation of this
Court, the High Court acted in a manner which can only be termed as
arbitrary and unwarranted, to say the least. [373-B-E]
c
R.C. Sood v. High Court of Rajas than [1994] Supp. 3 SCC 711, relied
on.
5.2. It appears that the Committee was only looking for a person who
was ready to depose against the petitioner even if he be an imposter. This D
conclusion is further strengthened by the selection of four other persons by
the Committee whose evidence is on record, all of whom had grudge against
. ..,
the petitioner. [369-D]
KIRPAL, J. The petitioner who was a member of the Rajasthan Higher
Judicial Service, has by this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of E
India, assailed the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against
him pursuant to the resolution dated 5th Jlviay, 1995 of the Full Court of the
Rajasthan High Court.
;·
The petitioner had joined the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service as a F
District and Sessions Judge on 31st July, 1976. He had been posted and had
...
discharged duties at various places and in different capacities including that
as an Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court and Registrar (Vigilance),
Rajasthan High Court. With effect from !st July, 1989 to !st February, 1994
the petitioner was posted as Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court. After he
was posted as District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur on 2nd February, 1994 G
and then was transferred as District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur with effect
from 6th June, 1994 but before his superannuation on attaining the age of 58
years, departmental enquiries were initiated against him on two occasions.
+
The first departmental enquiry was initiated by a resolution of Full Court
dated 21st October, 1994, which was challenged by the petitioner by filling
a writ petition in this Court. By order dated 22nd November, 1994 in the H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1998] 3 S.C.R.
A judgment reported as R.C. Sood v. High Court of Rajasthan, (1994) Suppl. 3
SCC 7 I I, this Court quashed the said disciplinary proceedings and the Full
Court's resolution in respect thereto. The second disciplinary proceeding,
).
which has been challenged in this writ petition, has been initiated by the High
..,
Court vide its resolution dated 5/6th January, I 995. Rule .nisi was issued by
B
this Court limited to the question of legality of the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner and not on the question of his retirement
. on his attaining the age of 58 years.
~
~
There are two sets of facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid two
resolutions by the High Court whereby it sought to initiate departmental
;
c proceedings against the petitioner. Even though the resolution dated 2 I st
October, I 994, when the first departmental proceeding was initiated, has been
quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 22nd November, I 994, in order,
however, to deal with the contentions arising in this petition, it is necessary
to first refer to the set of facts pertaining to the issuance of the first disciplinary
D
proceedings as that has very material bearing in the present case.
First Disciplinary Proceedings :
When the petitioner was working as the Registrar of the Rajasthan High
., . J.
Court the Full Court on 29th September, 1993 decided to invite applications
E to fill up the vacancies in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service by way of
direct recruitment. A draft advertisement was finalised in the Registry of the
Rajasthan High Court both in Hindi and in English mentioning therein the
conditions of eligibility of the candidates. According to the advertisement
which was published the age limit of the candidates was shown as the
minimum of35 years and maximum of 45 years on !st January, 1995. As the
F last date for receipt of the application was 18th March, 1994 and 20th March,
......
1994 the relevant cut off date should have been !st January, I 994. There being
..
an error in the publication of the advertisement in mentioning the relevant
date as !st January, 1995 instead of !st January, 1994, a Committee of two
Judges was required to go into the matter. The Committee in its report
G suggested that fresh applications be called for and the matter should be
placed before the Chief Justice for taking suitable action against the officer
who was responsible for issuing the incorrect notification. The Chief Justice
directed that this report should be put up before the Full Court by circulation.
On 20th October, I 994 the Full Court constituted a committee of two other
Judges to look into the record leading to the issuance of the notification. This
H committee submitted a report dated 21st October, 1994 and noted that in the
·.
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN [KIRPAL, J.]
359
draft for publication the date was correctly mentioned as I st January, 1994 but A
before the matter was sent to press for publication interpolations were made
changing the year from '1994' to '1995'. The committee further observed that
it was their tentative view that the petitioner was responsible for the "forgery
committed in the record". It recommended that a regular enquiry be made in
accordance with the rules and that the petitioner should be placed under B
suspension in contemplation of the enquiry.
On 21st October, 1994 the date of the report of the two Judge Committee,
the Full Court met at 2 p.m. and resolved that departmental inquiry be initiated
against the petitioner and he should be placed under suspension. This action
was challenged by a Writ Petition (C) No. 680 of 1994 being fled by the C
petitioner in this Court. By judgment dated 22nd November, 1994, in the case
reported as R.C. Sood v. State of Rajasthan, (supra), this Court quashed the
proposed disciplinary proceedings as well as order placing the petitioner
under suspension. While allowing the writ petition it was held that it was
difficult to appreciate how the Two Judge Committee could come to the D
conclusion that the~e was a forgery in the record and/or that any person had
benefited from the said error or that the petitioner was responsible for the
same.
The aforesaid decision and direction of this Court did not result in an
end to the petitioner's troubles. On the contrary the facts, to which we will E
currently refer, show how the further prospects of the petitioner in the judicial
career were successfully thwarted and the disciplinary proceedings have been
sought to be foisted on him, which is the subject matter of challenge in these
proceedings.
Impugned Disciplinary Proceedings :
F
We will now refer, in some detail, to the second set of facts culminating
in the passing of the impugned resolution of the Full Court on 5/6th January,
1995 instituting a regular departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan
Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958. The story in this G
connection starts from Septeniber, 1993 when one Vijay Singh describing
himself as Chairman of the Rajasthan Judicial Liberation Front, Bar Room,
Beni Park, Jaipur circulated a complaint, though described as a 'PIL - a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution', addressed to the Judges of the
Rajasthan High Court and other functionaries. It appears .that a copy of the
same was also sent to the State's Law Secretary. Vide his letter dated 15th H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A September, 1993, the Law Secretary forwarded that complaint to the Registrar
of the Rajasthan High Court. On 17th September, 1993 the Chief Justice
directed the Additional Registrar (Vigilance) to submit an early report in the
matter. On 25th September, 1993 the Additional Registrar (Vigilance) recorded
statement of one Vijay Singh Poonia, Advocate, President of the District
Court, Beni Park, Jaipur who stated that there was no organisation by the
B name of Rajasthan Judicial Liberation Front in Beni Park, Jaipur and that he
had not heard the name of such an organisation. He further stated that the
signatures on the complaint were not his and that he had made no complaint
against any judicial officer. The Additional Registrar had also called for the
comments of the petitioner on the complaint. After receiving the reply Additional
C Registrar (Vigilance) recorded further statements of other persons including
members of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and thereupon submitted
his report dated I Ith January, 1994 to the Chief Justice stating therein that
the complaint against the petitioner was false and fabricated. On the receipt
of the report the Chief Justice passed the following order on 31st January,
1994.
D
E
F
"I have gone through the report submitted by the Addi. Registrar,
Vigilance, Shri Behari Lal Gupta, in the matter of complaint filed against
the Registrar, Shri R.C. Sood. The report submitted by Shri Gupta
appears to be clear, cogent and categorical. He has dealt with all the
charges that have been levelled in the complaint against Shri Sood.
All the witnesses have testified to the good conduct, integrity and
rightness of Shri Sood. There is no gain of truth in the allegations
levelled against Shri Sood. It appears. that this complaint is filed
against Shri Sood out of malice. I put it down as the handiwork of
some mischief mongers. Thus the complaint is filed and no action
needs be taken against Shri Sood."
The matter thus stood closed as far as the complaint of Vijay Singh against
the petitioner was concerned.
After the petitioner had ceased to be the Registrar of the High Court
G the Chief Justice issued an office note relating to complaints against the
judicial officers. This note dated 12th May, 1994 which was addressed to
Registrar (Vigilance) and Additional Registrar (Vigilance) read as follows:
"A large number of complaints are being received against the
Judicial Officers. It has been noticed that after Preliminary Enquiry,
H
most of the complaints, i.e., more than 95% are found false. Sometime
...
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN [KIRPAL, J.]
361
P.E's consume a lot of time and Judicial Officers are put to· A
embarrassment. Therefore, before initiating the P.E. against any Judicial
Officer complainant may be asked to support his complaint with an
affidavit.
If the complainant does not file the requisite affidavit no action should
be taken on that complaint."
B
The trouble for the petitioner revived after he had, on 24th October,
1994, filed the earlier writ petition in this Court challenging his suspension
and initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the court's resolution dated 21st
October, 1994. From the perusal of those original records which had been C
placed before this Court at the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the
respondents it is seen that a hand written letter dated 27th October, 1994 was
written to the Chief Justice then in office by Mr. Justice Kokje which reads
as follows :
"I am enclosing a copy of PIL petition received by me some time D
back. As it was addressed to the Chief Justice, I did not forward it
then to you. However, when in the last full court meeting the matter
of Sh. R.C, Sood, Distt. Judge, came up I found no reference to the
serious charges made. against him in the petition by any one. As the
allegations are serious they deserve to be investigated thoroughly. I
would therefore request·you to kindly order an inquiry in the allegations E
made against Sh. R.C. Sood in the petition especially when he has
been proceeded against on certain other charges."
On this letter itself the then Chief Justice on that very day, i.e. 27th
October, 1994, made the following endorsement :
"Put up this matter in next F.C. In the meantime find out if previous
C.J. has received such copy and orders passed on."
F
The enclosure to the letter of Justice Kokje was a cyclostyled copy of the
same PIL/complaint of Vijay Singh which had been dealt with by the earlier G
Chief Justice vide order dated 31st January, 1994. After the judgment of this
Court on 22nd November, 1994, whereby the writ petition of RC Sood was
allowed with costs, the storm against the petitioner gathered momentum. On
30th November, 1994 the Full Court took up the letter of 27th October, 1994 ·
of Justice Kokje for discussion under Agenda Item No. 3. Copy of the minutes
of the said meeting pertaining to Item No.3 has been placed before us by the H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A learned counsel for the respondents and the same reads as under :
B
c
D
"On being informed that the complaint of which a copy was appended
to the letter dated 27.10.94 of Hon'ble Justice Shri Kokje had been
received earlier by the High Court a Preliminary Enquiry into the
allegations made therein had also been held, the record of Preliminary
Enquiry was called and perused by the Full Court. It was noted that
such a serious matter was never brought before the Full Court. It was
also noted that the Preliminary Enquiry against Shri R.C. Sood then
posted as Registrar was conducted by Additional Registrar (Vig) an
officer subordinate to him. Proceedings of the Preliminary Enquiry
show that statements of persons who were alleged to have benefitted
Shri Sood were recorded and in place of Shri Vijay Singh the
complainant, Shri Vijay Singh Poonia, President, Bar Association was
examined. Statements of selected judicial officers and lawyers certifying
Shri Sood to be a person of integrity were also recorded and relying
on such a material serious charges of corruption were dropped. Some
of the Hon'ble Judges have also received fresh complaints against
Shri R.C. Sood making serious charges of corruption. Considering all
these circumstances and the serious nature of the charges it is resolved
as follows :
"RESOLVED that the order passed by the then Hon'ble Chief
E
Justice on the report of Preliminary Enquiry against Shri R.C.Sood
conducted by the Additional Registrar (Vig) be and is hereby revoked."
F
FURTHER RESOLVED that Preliminary Enquiry in the matter be
made afresh by a Committee of Hon'ble Judges consisting of Hon 'ble
Mr. Justice B.R. Arora, Hon'ble Justice Shri V.S. Kokje and Hon'ble
Justice Shri BJ. Sethana. The Committee shall also eqnuire into various
complaints forwarded to them by Hon'ble Judges against Shri R.C.
Sood. It is hoped that the report of the Committee will be placed
before Full Court on or before 6.1.1995."
FURTHER RESOLVED that facts and circumstances leading to a
G
pendency of the Preliminary Enquiry be communicated to His Excellency
the President of India and Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India in view
of the fact that looking to the seniority of Shri R.C. Sood his name
is likely to be under consideration for elevation as a Judge of the High
Court. Hon 'ble the Chief Justice be and is hereby requested to do so."
H
The said Three Judge Committee submitted its report on 4th January,
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN [KIRPAL, J.]
363
1995. After fonnulating the points for consideration and discussing the material A
placed before it, it came to the following conclusion :
"The Committee, though had a short time at its disposal, has been
able to collect only a part of the materials, but on the basis of the part
of the materials too, as discussed above, we are of the view that prima
facie Shri R.C. Sood has failed to maintain absolute integrity and to B
maintain devotion to the duty and dignity of his office. The Committee
is, also, of the opinion that a regular enquiry under rule 16 of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1958, may be held against Shri R.C. Sood."
Submissions :
c
Two main contentions were urged on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it
was contended that with the passing of the order dated 31st January, 1994
by Chief Justice K.C. Aggarwal the complaint of Vijay Sing stood disposed
off. This complaint, it was submitted, could not br reopened by the Full Court
or the then Chief Justice specially when there were no attenuating D
circumstances by way of fresh evidence or material which would warrant a
fresh look in the matter - and there was no such material.
Secondly it was submitted that the initiation of the impugned disciplinary
proceedings by issuing a chargi:-sheet levelling charges which were stale and E
on materials gathered as an after thought was an action tainted with malice
and such proceedings were liable to be quashed as being mala fide and
malicious in law.
First submission :
The complaint of Vijay Singh had been enquired into by. the Additional
Registrar (Vigilance), on being directed to do so by the Chief Justice. During
the course of enquiry witnesses were examined and report was received
whereupon the Chief Justice on 31st January, 1994 passed the above mentioned
order. Subsequently on 12th May, 1994, the Chief Justice had directed that
F
no complaint should be entertained which is not supported by an affidavit. G
In the resolution of 30th November, 1994 reference is made to a preliminary
enquiry which had been made earlier and it was noted that such a serious
matter had never been brought before the Full Court. It was also stated that
statements of persons who were alleged to have been benefited by the
petitioner had been recorded and in place of the complainant Vijay Singh it H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A is one Vijay Singh Poonia, President Bar Association, who was examined. It
is because of this resolution that the earlier order of the Chief Justice and the
report of the preliminary enquiry were revoked.
The quesdon which arises for consideration is whether the Full Court
could or was justified in revoking a decision which was taken by the then
B Chief Justice on 31st January, 1994. Chapter Ill of the Rules of the High Court
. of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, deals with the conduct of the administrative
business of the court. For the purpose of this case the relevant rules are Rule
c
14, 15 and 32 which are as follows :
•
"14. Administrative business relating to control over subordinate
courts and to superintendance over courts and tribunals : - All
administrative business in the Court relating to the control over
subordinate courts vested in the Court under Article 235 of the
Constitution or otherwise and to the superintendance over the courts
and tribunals vested in the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
D
or otherwise shall be disposed of as provided hereinafter.
15. Matters on which all Judges shall be consulted - On the following
matters all the Judges of the Court shall be consulted, namely:-
( a) proposals as to legislation or changes in the law ;
E
(b) proposals as to changes in or the issue of new Rules of Court;
F
( c) proposals as to changes in or the issue of new rules for the
guidance of subordinate courts;
(d) appointment, promotion and seniority of judicial officers;
( e) withholding of promotion, supersession or reduction of judicial
officer;
(f) removal or dismissal of any judicial officer;
(g) compulsory retirement of Judicial officer otherwise than by way of
G
punishment;
(h) important questions of policy or those affecting the powers and
status of the court laid before the Court by Chief Justice or any other
Judge;
•
H
(i) matters connected with the Supreme Court;
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN [KIRPAL, J.)
365
(j) annual administration report;
(k) matters upon which the Government desires the opinion of the
Court, if such matter is considered fit to be laid before the Court by
the Chief Justice; and
A
(I) any matter which the Chief Justice or the Administrative Committee, B
as constituted under Rule 16, may consider fit to be laid before them
for consideration.
32. Effect of any irregularity in or omission to follow the procedure
laid down in this Chapter - (1) No irregularity in, or omission to
follow, the procedure laid down in thin Chapter shall affect the C
validity of any order passed or anything done under these Rules
(2) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby mentioned that all
administrative work disposed of by the Chief Justice, the Administrative
Judge or Judges to whom the work has been assigned by the Chief D
Justice for disposal shall be deemed to be disposed of by the Court.
A perusal of these rules show that matters where all the Judges are
required to be consulted, namely, those which have been brought to the Full
Court, are enumerated in Rule 15. With regard to the judicial officers it is
clauses ( d) to (g) which are relevant. It is only if a judicial officer is to be E
removed or dismissed that the matter has to be brought before the Full Court.
Under clause (i) if the Chief Justice desires then any matter can be listed
before the Full Court. Every complaint received against a judicial officer is not
required to be brought before the Full Court unless and until the question of
removal or dismissal of the judicial officer arises. It was competent for the
Chief Justice especially in view of the provision of sub rule (2) of Rule 32, F
while dealing with the complaint received against the petitioner, to decide that
no action thereon was called for. No illegality or impropriety was, therefore,
committed by the Chief Justice when he decided on 3 I st January, I 994 that
the complaint of Vijay Singh did not call for any disciplinary action against
the petitioner. It is only if the Chief Justice was of the view that disciplinary G
action may be called for that, by virtue of clauses (e), (f) and (g) the matter
would have required to be brought before the Full Court. That apart, the Chief
Justice could under clause (I) have brought the complaint to the notice of the
Full Court, but he chose not to do so. This was because he was apparently
satisfied about the hollowness of the complaint on the basis of the preliminary
report of the Additional Registrar (Vigilance) which was received by him.
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A
We express no opinion on the question whether for good and sufficient
B
reasons the Full Court can ever over-rule or recall an earlier decision of the
Chief Justice. But the fact that the preliminary report was not brought to the
notice of the Full Court, which the Chief Justice was not bound do, could not
be reason for recalling the order dated 31st January, .i994 of the then Chief
Justice.
Another error which was committed was that the Court in its resolution
of 30th November, 1994 took into consideration the complaint of Vijay Singh
even though the same was not supported by an affidavit. The Chief Justice
had by his order dated 12th May, 1994, decided that no complaint against a
C judicial officer should be entertained unless it is supported by an affidavit.
Though this was an administrative order it was passed by the Chief Justice
in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Rule 32(2) of the said Rules.
There was no reasons to why this order should have been ignored and the
complaint ofVijay Singh entertained even though it was not supported by an
affidavit. The resolution of 30th November, 1994 also states that some of the
D judges have received fresh complaints against the petitioner making serious
charges of corruption. No particulars are indicated as to which complaints
were received by which judge. It is evident from the wording of these minutes
that what those complaints were, were not even known to all the members of
the Full Court when they passed the resolution on 30th November, 1994. We
E have, therefore, no doubt that when a valid decision had been taken by the
then Chief Justice on 3 lst January 1994 exonerating the petitioner there was
no valid reason in law for the Full Court to revoke that decision.
F
Second Submission :
During the course of hearing Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel
for the respondent produced in court the original file containing the complaints
received and the proceedings of the aforesaid Three Judge Committee. We
have carefully examined the said file in order to satisfy ourselves whether the
Committee was fair and judicious in the task which was entrusted to it.
Without going into minute details, the file reveals following facts which speak
G for themselves.
On the letter dated 27th October, 1994, the Chief Justice made a note
dated 27th October, 1994 calling for a report. But the first note of the registry
relating to the letter dated 27th October, 1994 of Justice Kokje is dated 9th
November, 1994. The suggestion made in this note was that the file be sent
H to vigilance cell because that dealt with the complaints received against the
-
R.C. SOOD v. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN [KIRPAL, J.)
367
judicial officers. The next note also dated 9th November, 1994 of the vigilance A
cell states that its report is placed along with the note. This is followed by
a note also of 9th November, 1994 of the Chief Justice stating that "put up
in next Full Court''. Curiously enough the report mentioned in the note of the
vigilance cell is not on the record filed in court though it purported to be a
part of vigilance section's note. There is then an undated note which appears B
to be the minutes of a meeting of the Three Judge Committee which is in the
file in which it is, inter alia, stated that initially it has been decided_ to call
seven witnesses for their examination relating to various charges against the
petitioner. The Committee also decided to call for the valuation of the house
belonging to the petitioner from the Valuation Cell of the Income-tax
Department as well as the Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur. These C
minutes are signed by all the three judges of the committee. There is then a
confidential note dated 9th December, 1994 signed by Justice Arora directing
the registry to summon four witnesses mentioned therein for 19th December,
1994 and three other witnesses named therein for 20th December, 1994 . The
file discloses that as on 30th November, 1994 there were written complaints
made by seven persons against the petitioner apart from the complaint of 19th D
September, 1993 of Vijay Singh. The other complaints are either dated 26th
November, 1994 or 30th November, 1994 or are undated.