Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses to drop probe against judge for excessive compensation in MACT cases

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to drop disciplinary enquiry initiated against a judicial officer who is accused of awarding substantially higher amount of compensation in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) cases [Sudhir Jiwan v High Court of Punjab & Haryana and another]..The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal ruled that absence of specific details regarding the alleged ‘extraneous consideration’ received by the judge, would not come in the way of looking into the charges.“Non-specification of extraneous consideration may have been relevant for petitioner but considering the fact that the award of compensation under the sole head of ‘loss of love and affection’ was nearly 10 times the amount which is expected of a Tribunal to award, the said vague allegation of some ‘extraneous consideration’ cannot come in the way of the High Court to proceed and enquire into the existence or non-existence of extraneous consideration/oblique motive by way of disciplinary proceedings,” the Court said..Additional District and Sessions Sudhir Jiwan had sought quashing of the charge sheet issued to him by the High Court in 2014. He had been granted interim protection in March 2017.The same was vacated on February 4, permitting the High Court to proceed with the departmental enquiry in “accordance with law as expeditiously as possible”..As per the article of charges, Jain, while dealing with motor accident claim cases as MACT judge, had awarded substantially heavy compensation for loss of love and affection without giving any justifiable grounds and without relying upon or referring to any case law/precedent. In particular, he is alleged to have awarded ₹20,69,688 and ₹18,25,400 for loss of love and affection in two separate MACT cases..In the petition before the High Court, he argued that a decision taken by the judicial officer on the judicial side is immune from disciplinary proceedings on the administrative side. Further, he said the allegation of extraneous consideration was not specified.However, the Division Bench rejected the argument, observing that it was not sufficient to halt the enquiry.“It is trite law in service jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings once commenced ought not to be interfered with unless proven mala fide are alleged or a bare reading of allegations contained in the chargesheet do not disclose misconduct or the issuance of charge-sheet is against any constitutional or statutory provision. None of these factors exist in the present case,” it added..Advocate Mukesh Rao represented the petitioner.Advocate Divya Sharma represented the High Court.[Read Judgment]