Different orders in same set of facts-judge held guity
At this stage, it is also pertinent to observe
that while ordering framing of charge against two
employees of the municipality, the petitioner ordered
discharge of three accused though in the chargesheet,
the police had levelled charges against all the
accused under sections 465, 466 and 477 read with
section 34 of Indian Penal Code. If the petitioner –
delinquent officer found some evidence against the
employees of the municipality to proceed against them,
he ought to have appreciated that the same set of
evidence could be considered for proceeding against
the three accused also and there was no earthy reason
as to why those three accused should have been
discharged without a trial by applying a different
yard stick. In our view, the order passed by the
petitioner was such that no Judicial Officer with a
reasonable prudence would pass such an order.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the
High Court on its administrative side has rightly
viewed the order under consideration passed by the
petitioner – delinquent officer and his conduct in
doing so in the background of the fact that he was not
a novice or a junior judge since he had by then put in
nearly 16 years of service.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1648 of 2010
P G VYAS....Petitioner(s)
Versus
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
