SADHNA CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

SADHNA CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

The appeal is allowed and the dismissal set aside because the disciplinary charges were founded exclusively on the end results of two land acquisition orders without any allegation or proof that the decision-making process was vitiated by extraneous considerations or illegal gratification; one of the orders was affirmed and the compensation enhanced by this Court, and writ challenges had failed at the High Court, so the foundational basis for inferring dishonesty collapsed.

Parties
Appellant: Sadhna Chaudhary; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment Dated 12.12.2018
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; order of dismissal dated 17.01.2006 set aside; appellant reinstated with consequential and retiral benefits
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disciplinary Enquiry, Judicial Review Under Article 226, Reinstatement, Integrity and Probity
Service Law Judicial Service Land Acquisition Constitutional Law Misconduct Disciplinary Enquiry Judicial Review Under Article 226 Reinstatement +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sadhna Chaudhary

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment Dated 12.12.2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judicial officer can be subjected to disciplinary action based on the end result of judicial orders rather than on the decision-making process or evidence of extraneous considerations
  2. 2 Whether mere suspicion or probability of misconduct, unaccompanied by oral or documentary material, is sufficient to establish misconduct in a departmental enquiry
  3. 3 The extent to which dismissal of writ petitions under Article 226 constitutes vindication of subordinate court orders and the relevance of superior court review in disciplinary proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed and the dismissal set aside because the disciplinary charges were founded exclusively on the end results of two land acquisition orders without any allegation or proof that the decision-making process was vitiated by extraneous considerations or illegal gratification; one of the orders was affirmed and the compensation enhanced by this Court, and writ challenges had failed at the High Court, so the foundational basis for inferring dishonesty collapsed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; order of dismissal dated 17.01.2006 set aside; appellant reinstated with consequential and retiral benefits

Orders

  • High Court judgment dated 12.12.2018 set aside
  • Order of dismissal passed by Respondent No.1 dated 17.01.2006 set aside