Judicial Decisions Are Not Immune from Disciplinary Proceedings:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Inquiry Against Judicial Officer

“Extraneous Considerations in Awarding Excessive Compensation Must Be Investigated” – Court Rejects Challenge to Departmental Inquiry - In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Sudhir Jiwan, a judicial officer from the Superior Judicial Services, challenging a charge-sheet dated June 7, 2014, and the rejection of his plea to drop the disciplinary inquiry.

Rejecting the judicial officer’s contention that judicial decisions are immune from administrative scrutiny, the court ruled: "While judicial officers must exercise independence, they are not beyond accountability. When a decision raises legitimate concerns of extraneous considerations, an inquiry is justified.”

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal, who vacated the interim stay on disciplinary proceedings and permitted the High Court to continue its inquiry against the officer.

Allegations of Extraneous Considerations in MACT Compensation Awards

The case revolved around multiple Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awards issued by Sudhir Jiwan in his capacity as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narnaul. He was accused of granting exorbitant compensation under the head of “loss of love and affection” without providing any legal justification or reliance on precedents.

The charge-sheet specifically cited two cases:

• MACT Case No. 266/2010 (Saroj v. Ajit) – Compensation of ₹20,69,688/- awarded under “loss of love and affection.”

• MACT Case No. 226/2010 (Beena Devi v. Anil) – Compensation of ₹18,25,400/- awarded under “loss of love and affection.”

The High Court noted that such awards were nearly 10 times the amount normally granted under this head, raising serious concerns about judicial propriety and bias. The charge-sheet further alleged that the judicial officer’s actions were influenced by “extraneous considerations,” though it did not specify what those considerations were.

“Judicial Independence Does Not Shield Officers from Accountability” – High Court Rejects Immunity Claim

The petitioner argued that his judicial decisions should not be subjected to administrative scrutiny, relying on the principle that judicial discretion is immune from disciplinary action.

However, the High Court firmly rejected this contention, ruling:

"A judicial officer is expected to work without fear, favor, ill-will, or malice. However, when decisions display bias, impropriety, or a disregard for legal principles, they become subject to scrutiny."

The court cited the fact that his awards were drastically reduced on appeal, with the compensation in FAO No. 276-2013 being lowered to ₹2,50,000/-, as proof that his original decisions lacked legal foundation.

Further, the court observed that disciplinary proceedings should not be interfered with unless there is clear mala fide intent, violation of statutory provisions, or lack of misconduct on the face of the record. None of these conditions were met in this case.

Concluding its judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the petition, vacated the interim stay on disciplinary proceedings, and allowed the High Court administration to proceed with the inquiry expeditiously.

"A bare perusal of the charge-sheet reveals serious allegations warranting investigation. The judiciary’s credibility demands that such concerns be addressed through a fair and impartial inquiry."

With this ruling, Sudhir Jiwan remains subject to disciplinary proceedings, and the High Court is now free to examine whether his conduct violated judicial ethics and procedural fairness.

Date of decision : February 4, 2025