In Brief
A judicial officer with 27 years of service was removed after a departmental inquiry into four bail orders in Excise Act cases, allegedly granted without referring to statutory conditions while other bail applications were rejected. The complaint alleged corruption. However, the inquiry lacked direct evidence—the complainant was not examined, witnesses testified the orders were proper, and prosecutors confirmed no challenge was mounted. The Supreme Court found the inquiry perverse, holding that mere judicial error or debatable orders, without proof of corruption or extraneous motives, cannot justify disciplinary action. The Court set aside removal, reinstated the officer with back wages, and cautioned High Courts against initiating proceedings based solely on allegedly wrong judicial orders.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.