Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today rejected a plea filed by a former judicial officer who was dismissed from service over filing of criminal cases against an ex-Chief Justice and Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the matter and remarked that the petitioner did not deserve to be in any government service, much less the judicial service.

Briefly put, petitioner-Prabhakar Gwal was a judicial officer in Chhattisgarh. He was dismissed from service after the Full Court recommended his dismissal without inquiry on finding that he, through his wife, filed a criminal case against many persons, including the then Chief Justice and a senior judge of the High Court. Gwal challenged the dismissal order before the High Court, but both the Single Bench and the Division Bench held against him and confirmed his dismissal. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court.

Background

In August 2020, a Single Bench of the High Court, while dismissing Gwal's writ petition, observed that Article 311(2)(b) was attracted in the case as he had acted deliberately, knowing fully the repercussions of his act. It was also said that there were reasons available in the records, which led to the Full Court recommending his dismissal invoking Article 311(2).

Challenging the Single Bench order, Gwal moved an appeal before the Division Bench, contending that the Single Bench passed the judgment by misinterpreting Article 311 of the Constitution. It was further alleged that the judgment was passed with a view to please the then 12th seniormost Judge of the Supreme Court, against whom a complaint case was filed by Gwal's wife.

Gwal also contended that the Single Bench acted improperly by participating in the Full Court Meeting that recommended his dismissal and then presiding over the case as a judge in his writ petition challenging his termination. It was further submitted that the Single Judge's actions, including failing to question the lack of a departmental inquiry and withholding documents, suggested a bias and a failure to act impartially.

In appeal, the Division Bench observed that it was not one act on part of the petitioner which forced the Full Court to recommend his dismissal. Instead, it was a case where there were a series of correspondences repeatedly casting serious insinuations, making unscrupulous allegations and obnoxious comments, all of which were false, scurrilous and malicious, against the Chief Justice of the High Court, as also the senior Judges of the High Court, so also against the senior Judicial Officers in the Higher Judicial Service, as also against the colleagues in the Lower Judicial Service.

Thus, the Court opined that there were sufficient germane reasons available on records, which led to the Full Court recommending the dismissal of the appellant invoking under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, dispensing with the departmental enquiry.

The Court further noted that an inquiry is conducted to address allegations or charges of misconduct against a delinquent officer, allowing the officer to defend themselves and challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution or department; however, in the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner was just not that of having committed a misconduct. Rather, it was a case “where it is the behaviour of the judicial officer particularly his conduct and the manner in which he conducted himself more, which has forced the High Court to reach to the conclusion that the appellant is a person not fit to remain in judicial service”.

In this backdrop, the Division Bench dismissed the petitioner's appeal, taking into account his behavior and finding all contentions raised by him liable to be dismissed.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: PRABHAKAR GWAL Versus STATE OF CHHATISGARH AND ANR., Diary No. 58426-2024