Initiate action against CJM for incompetence, says HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 21

Severely indicting a judicial officer belonging to the subordinate judiciary, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the initiation of departmental action against him after ruling that his order giving irrational reasons showed the dearth of understanding criminal jurisprudence and fundamental principles of law. It also reflected judicial indiscipline, amounting to grave misconduct, and warranting departmental action.

“Let the order’s copy be sent to the Chief Justice for initiating departmental action against Mr Arvind Kumar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari,” Justice Manoj Bajaj asserted. The directions came on a petition by Puran Chand Sharma. An accused in an FIR alleging criminal trespass, criminal intimidation and other offences registered in September 2012 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 447, 452, 506 and 380 of the IPC at the Yamunanagar city police station, he had applied for pre-arrest bail.

Dearth of understanding

His order giving irrational reasons showed the dearth of understanding criminal jurisprudence and fundamental principles of law. It also reflected judicial indiscipline, amounting to grave misconduct, and warranting departmental action. —Justice Manoj Bajaj, Punjab & Haryana HC

The High Court, had in February 2014, directed his release on interim bail, subject to certain conditions. Among other things, the Bench took note of the submission by the petitioner’s counsel that he was ready to deposit Rs 1,10,000 allegedly found to be stolen, but not mentioned in the FIR. The Bench then directed the petitioner to deposit the amount before the trial court and not to claim it till the final disposal of the case.

The trial ended in the acquittal of all accused, following which he prayed for directions to the CJM to release the amount. Accepting his prayer, the High Court, vide order dated November 6, 2020, ordered refund.

The CJM, however, declined the prayer. By way of the impugned order, the judicial officer observed that the appeal’s pendency against the acquittal order was not brought to the HC’s notice, when the order of amount release was passed. As such, Rs 1,10,000 could not be disbursed.

Justice Bajaj asserted that the reasoning was patently absurd and illogical as February 2014 order was considered by the court while issuing the directions for refunding the amount. Besides, an order passed in a bail application and condition imposed therein could not be stretched beyond the trial’s conclusion.

Justice Bajaj added that his explanation showed he felt “honoured” in receiving the show-cause notice for the HC order’s violation and attempted to explain that he mistakenly refused to refund the amount as directed and regretted the inconvenience caused to the HC.

It was as if he failed to comply with the HC order on administrative side, such as failure to send requisitioned case record in time.

“The expression and reasoning contained in the impugned order do not show that the disobedience of the direction by this court was erroneous as claimed in the explanation. Therefore, the same is not worth acceptance,” Justice Bajaj concluded.