In Brief
A judicial officer was dismissed for awarding higher land compensation in two acquisition cases, with the disciplinary enquiry finding her conduct "shocking" and suggesting extraneous influence. The High Court upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that a judge's dismissal cannot rest on suspicion arising merely from the outcome of her orders. Without explicit evidence of receipt of illegal gratification or actual extraneous considerations in the decision-making process, misconduct cannot be inferred. Since one order was affirmed and the other had compensation further enhanced by higher courts, the foundation of the charges collapsed. The Court emphasized that judges must be above suspicion, but mere suspicion unsupported by material evidence is insufficient for disciplinary action.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.