Supreme Court’s  Decision on Dismissal of Judicial Officer: Legal/Constitutional Provisions/Procedure/न्यायिक अधिकारी की बर्खास्तगी पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट का निर्णय: कानूनी/संवैधानिक प्रावधान और प्रक्रिया

Why in News? The Supreme Court set aside the termination of two women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, terming it “punitive, arbitrary, and illegal.”

• Directed their reinstatement within 15 days in accordance with their seniority.
• While they won’t receive salaries for the period of termination, their monetary benefits will be calculated notionally for pension purposes.

Key Points of the News:

Background:

• Six women civil judicial officers were dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh government on May 23, 2023, based on the recommendations of the MP High Court’s administrative committee.

• The women officers made a representation to the then Chief Justice of India alleging their termination from service was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the MP Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. Upon considering the said representation, the CJI directed that the matter be registered by way of a suo motu writ petition.

• Four officers were reinstated after the Supreme Court’s intervention, while the cases of Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary continued until this judgment.

Charges and Observations:

• One officer had faced back-to-back personal challenges, including COVID-19, miscarriage, and her brother’s cancer diagnosis.
• The adverse remarks in her Annual Confidential Report (ACR) did not account for these factors.
• The other officer was not given the opportunity to respond to a complaint before her termination.
• The court ruled that complaints resulting in advisories or warnings could not form the basis for dismissal.

Judiciary and Women’s Representation:

• Justice Nagarathna emphasized the importance of increased diversity in the judiciary, noting that greater representation of women would enhance judicial decision-making, especially in cases affecting women.
• She highlighted how a sensitive work environment and recognition of women’s challenges are crucial for advancing gender equality.

Sensitivity in the Workplace:

• Justice Nagarathna observed that the judiciary must ensure a supportive environment for women, acknowledging their unique challenges, such as physical health issues during menstruation.
• She stressed the need for awareness of the anxieties and difficulties faced by women in professional roles.

Legal Framework:

• The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to procedural fairness, emphasizing that termination decisions must align with established rules and constitutional principles.

• The top court referred to Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights that accorded special protection to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth

About Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Focus: Protection of Family, Maternity, and Children

Key Provisions:

• Recognizes the family as the fundamental group unit of society that must be protected.
• Requires states to ensure special protection for mothers during a “reasonable period” before and after childbirth.
• Calls for paid leave or adequate social security benefits for mothers.
• Mandates measures to protect children and young persons from economic and social exploitation, including prohibiting their employment in work harmful to their morals, health, or safety.

This article emphasizes the need for supportive policies for mothers, such as maternity leave, child protection, and prevention of exploitation, reflecting a commitment to safeguarding women and children in both social and professional contexts.

Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

Focus: Equality in Employment

Key Provisions:

• Ensures women’s equal rights to employment opportunities, wages, benefits, and conditions as men.
• Prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotions, and dismissal based on pregnancy, maternity leave, or marital status.
• Mandates the provision of maternity leave with pay or comparable social benefits.
• Encourages states to introduce support services like childcare to facilitate women’s participation in the workforce.
• Obliges states to safeguard women from workplace discrimination and provide adequate protections for health and safety.

This article reflects a commitment to eliminating gender-based discrimination in employment and ensuring that motherhood or family responsibilities do not lead to bias or disadvantage in the workplace.

Constitutional Dismissal Process:

Under the Constitution of India, dismissal from public service must adhere to the following legal provisions:

Article 311: Protection of Civil Servants:

• Applicability: Article 311 provides safeguards to public servants (including judicial officers) under the Union or State governments.

Key Provisions:

Opportunity to Defend: A government employee cannot be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without being informed of the charges against them and being given an opportunity to be heard.

Exceptions:

• If the dismissal is based on conviction in a criminal case.
• If it is impractical to hold an inquiry (e.g., in cases of national security).
• If the President or Governor decides in the interest of state security.

Judicial Officers: The dismissal of judicial officers involves additional scrutiny since they play a vital role in the justice delivery system. Their dismissal must pass the test of fairness and legality.

Violation in the Present Case:

The Supreme Court likely found that:

• The judicial officers were not adequately informed of the charges.
• No reasonable opportunity was provided to defend themselves.
• The inquiry process may have been arbitrary or biased.

The Judicial Service Rules in India for dismissal, severe penalties, or disciplinary action against judicial officers are primarily governed by the Constitution of India, specific judicial service rules framed by individual states, and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. Below are the key provisions and rules:

Constitutional Provisions:

Article 235:

• Vests the control over subordinate judiciary in the High Court of the respective state, including the power to recommend dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of judicial officers.

Article 311:

Provides procedural safeguards for judicial officers and civil servants, including:

Clause (1): No dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.

Clause (2): No dismissal or removal without an inquiry where the individual has been informed of the charges and given an opportunity to defend themselves.

Proviso to Clause (2): Exceptions include cases of:

• Conviction in a criminal offense.
• Situations where an inquiry is impractical or against national security.

All India Judicial Service (AIJS) Rules:

• Although the All India Judicial Service has not been fully implemented, the judiciary in India follows state-specific rules with a few general principles derived from landmark cases and constitutional provisions.

State Judicial Service Rules:

• Each state in India has its own judicial service rules (e.g., Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules), which govern the appointment, service conditions, and disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers. Common provisions include:

 Grounds for Dismissal or Severe Penalties

Misconduct:

• Corruption or acts of dishonesty.
• Misbehavior or conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.

 Incompetence:

• Failure to discharge duties efficiently.
• Inefficiency or inability to meet performance standards.

Breach of Judicial Ethics:

• Violation of judicial independence.
• Actions undermining the dignity of the judiciary.

Criminal Conviction:

• Conviction in a criminal offense or moral turpitude.

Disciplinary Actions:

• Dismissal
• Removal
• Compulsory Retirement
• Reduction in Rank or Pay
• Suspension

High Court’s Role:

• Under Article 235, the High Court supervises the conduct of judicial officers and initiates disciplinary proceedings.
• The High Court has the power to:

• • Recommend dismissal or removal to the state government.
  • Take suo motu action based on complaints or adverse findings.

Key Rules and Case Laws:

Landmark Case Laws

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974):

• Established that the High Court’s recommendation for dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank is binding on the state government.

Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985):

• Clarified the exceptions under Article 311(2) and upheld that dismissal without inquiry is valid in exceptional circumstances.

All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1993):

• Highlighted the importance of maintaining high ethical standards in the judiciary.

Registrar General, Patna High Court v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad (2012):

• Held that judicial officers must adhere to strict standards of conduct and any breach may warrant severe disciplinary action.

Judicial Accountability

• The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012 (not yet enacted) sought to enhance accountability in the judiciary, including provisions for disciplinary actions.

Severe Rules for Misconduct or Breach:

Conduct Rules:

• Judicial officers must adhere to the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, or equivalent state rules, which prohibit:
• Accepting bribes.
• Misusing office for personal gain.
• Engaging in political activities.

Provisions for Immediate Action:

Suspension Pending Inquiry:

• A judicial officer may be suspended during the pendency of an inquiry to prevent interference with proceedings.

 Dismissal for Moral Turpitude:

• • • Immediate dismissal may be recommended if the judicial officer is convicted of a serious crime.

Supreme Court Guidelines:

The Supreme Court has issued guidelines for disciplinary proceedings to ensure fairness and accountability, including:

• Timely completion of inquiries.
• Providing sufficient opportunity for defense.
• Considering mitigating circumstances (e.g., health or personal hardships).

High Court Circulars and Notifications:

Many High Courts issue circulars or notifications outlining specific disciplinary rules and penalties for judicial officers under their jurisdiction. These documents often contain:

• Procedures for filing complaints.
• Penalties for different types of misconduct.
• Processes for appeals or reviews.

न्यायिक अधिकारी की बर्खास्तगी पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट का निर्णय: कानूनी/संवैधानिक प्रावधान और प्रक्रिया

समाचार में क्यों?
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मध्य प्रदेश में दो महिला न्यायिक अधिकारियों की बर्खास्तगी को “दंडात्मक, मनमाना और अवैध” बताते हुए खारिज कर दिया।

• सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 15 दिनों के भीतर उन्हें उनकी वरिष्ठता के अनुसार पुन: नियुक्त करने का निर्देश दिया।
• हालांकि, उन्हें बर्खास्तगी की अवधि का वेतन नहीं मिलेगा, लेकिन उनके पेंशन उद्देश्यों के लिए मौद्रिक लाभों की गणना की जाएगी।

समाचार के मुख्य बिंदु:

पृष्ठभूमि:

• 23 मई 2023 को मध्य प्रदेश सरकार ने एमपी हाईकोर्ट की प्रशासनिक समिति की सिफारिश पर छह महिला सिविल न्यायिक अधिकारियों को बर्खास्त कर दिया।
• इन महिला अधिकारियों ने भारत के तत्कालीन मुख्य न्यायाधीश को अपनी बर्खास्तगी के खिलाफ अवRepresentation भेजा, जिसमें इसे एमपी न्यायिक सेवा (भर्ती और सेवा शर्तें) नियम, 1994 के खिलाफ मनमाना और अवैध बताया।
• मुख्य न्यायाधीश ने इसे स्वत: संज्ञान लेकर रिट याचिका के रूप में पंजीकृत किया।
• सुप्रीम कोर्ट के हस्तक्षेप के बाद चार अधिकारियों को बहाल कर दिया गया, जबकि अदिति कुमार शर्मा और सरिता चौधरी के मामले में यह निर्णय आया।

आरोप और टिप्पणियां:

• एक अधिकारी को व्यक्तिगत कठिनाइयों जैसे COVID-19, गर्भपात, और उनके भाई के कैंसर निदान का सामना करना पड़ा।
• उनकी वार्षिक गोपनीय रिपोर्ट (ACR) में इन कारकों का ध्यान नहीं रखा गया।
• दूसरे अधिकारी को बर्खास्तगी से पहले शिकायत का जवाब देने का अवसर नहीं दिया गया।
• सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि शिकायतों के आधार पर दी गई सलाह या चेतावनियां बर्खास्तगी का आधार नहीं हो सकतीं।

न्यायपालिका और महिलाओं का प्रतिनिधित्व:

• न्यायमूर्ति नागरत्ना ने न्यायपालिका में महिलाओं की अधिक भागीदारी के महत्व को रेखांकित किया।
• उन्होंने कहा कि महिलाओं की चुनौतियों को पहचानने और उनके लिए संवेदनशील कार्यस्थल वातावरण सुनिश्चित करना लैंगिक समानता को बढ़ावा देने के लिए आवश्यक है।

संवेदनशील कार्यस्थल:

• न्यायमूर्ति नागरत्ना ने कहा कि न्यायपालिका को महिलाओं के लिए सहायक माहौल सुनिश्चित करना चाहिए, जिसमें उनके विशेष स्वास्थ्य और सामाजिक चुनौतियों को ध्यान में रखा जाए।

कानूनी ढांचा:

संवैधानिक प्रावधान:

अनुच्छेद 311: नागरिक सेवकों की सुरक्षा:

लागूता: यह प्रावधान केंद्र या राज्य सरकार के अधीन न्यायिक अधिकारियों और नागरिक सेवकों को सुरक्षा प्रदान करता है।

मुख्य प्रावधान:

रक्षा का अवसर: किसी भी सरकारी कर्मचारी को बर्खास्त, हटाया, या पदावनत नहीं किया जा सकता जब तक कि उन्हें आरोपों की जानकारी न दी जाए और अपना बचाव करने का मौका न दिया जाए।

अपवाद:

• आपराधिक मामले में दोषसिद्धि।
• यदि जांच करना व्यावहारिक नहीं है (जैसे राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा के मामलों में)।

अनुच्छेद 235:

1. • राज्य के अधीनस्थ न्यायपालिका पर हाईकोर्ट का नियंत्रण।
   • हाईकोर्ट को बर्खास्तगी, हटाने, या पदावनति की सिफारिश करने का अधिकार।

मध्य प्रदेश न्यायिक सेवा (भर्ती और सेवा शर्तें) नियम, 1994:

• इन नियमों के तहत न्यायिक अधिकारियों की नियुक्ति, सेवा शर्तें और अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही होती है।
• बर्खास्तगी के आधार:
  1. दुराचार:
     • भ्रष्टाचार या बेईमानी।
     • अनुचित आचरण।
  2. अक्षमता:
     • कार्यों को प्रभावी ढंग से निष्पादित करने में विफलता।
  3. नैतिकता का उल्लंघन:
     • न्यायिक स्वतंत्रता का उल्लंघन।
  4. आपराधिक दोषसिद्धि।

प्रमुख न्यायिक निर्णय:

1. शमशेर सिंह बनाम पंजाब राज्य (1974):

1. • हाईकोर्ट की बर्खास्तगी या पदावनति की सिफारिश राज्य सरकार पर बाध्यकारी मानी गई।

2. भारत संघ बनाम तुलसीराम पटेल (1985):

1. • अनुच्छेद 311(2) के अपवादों को स्पष्ट किया।

3. ऑल इंडिया जजेस एसोसिएशन बनाम भारत संघ (1993):

1. • न्यायपालिका में उच्च नैतिक मानकों को बनाए रखने का महत्व रेखांकित किया।

निष्कर्ष:

यह निर्णय यह सुनिश्चित करता है कि बर्खास्तगी या अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाई के दौरान संवैधानिक सुरक्षा और प्रक्रियात्मक निष्पक्षता का पालन किया जाए। महिलाओं के प्रति न्यायपालिका की संवेदनशीलता और निष्पक्षता के साथ कार्यस्थल की समावेशिता बढ़ाने की आवश्यकता को भी उजागर किया गया।