A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while seized of the first appeal against a Land Acquisition Reference, made certain observations on 05.03.2004 with regard to the manner in which some other land acquisition cases of similar nature were being adjudicated by subordinate judicial officers in the state of Uttar Pradesh.1 A companyy of the judgment was placed by the Registrar before the Administrative Committee of High Court for appropriate action.
The said report was placed before the Administrative Committee which accepted the same vide resolution dated 29.11.2005, and referred the matter to the Full Court for determination of quantum of punishment.
This appeal has been preferred by Sadhana Chaudhary, being aggrieved, against an order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which her writ petition, seeking judicial review of her dismissal from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services by Respondent No.
With regards to the first case of Lile Singh v. State2 it held that the appellant had wrongly relied upon a companypromise deed of two other claimants to enhance companypensation from Rs 74.40/sq yd as determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to Rs 264/sq yd.
This enquiry companymittee after visiting numerous districts of western Uttar Pradesh UP and examination of many judgments, submitted a report on 19.09.2004 recommending initiation of disciplinary action against certain judicial officers, including the appellant.
The Full Court resolved to dismiss the appellant from service and companysequently forwarded its recommendation to the State Respondent No.
Signature Not Verified The appellant was recruited into the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Services on 05.06.1975 and was posted as Additional Munsif, Date 2020.03.06 170550 IST Reason Dehradun.
Given the detailed reasons in both references by the appellant, there was numberreckless discharge of duties either.
The appellant challenged the order of dismissal before the High Court on judicial side invoking the writ jurisdiction.
She was subsequently promoted to the Chief Judicial Page 1 Magistrate Cadre in 1981, and again to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services on 21.03.1987.
1 , which through an office memorandum issued by its Appointments Department on 17.01.2006, dismissed the appellant from service with immediate effect.
Following were the charges attributed to the appellant Charge No.1 That you on 10.02.2003 while posted as IInd Additional District Judge Ghaziabad decided Land Acquisition Reference No.193/1996 Lile Singh Vs.
The Division Bench of the HC took numbere of the two land acquisition references which had been decided by the appellant.
Emphasis applied Page 3 The appellant submitted detailed reply to the chargesheet, as well as additional written arguments.
The Administrative Committee companystituted a companymittee companyprising of two Judges to probe into companyplaints of companylusion in land acquisition matters.
Accordingly, a Charge Sheet was served upon the appellant with regard to two judicial orders delivered by her during her stint as Additional District Judge at Ghaziabad.
Thus, the very basis of the inference of misconduct was claimed as number having survived.
This, the High Court numbered, amounted to misconduct as opined by the Enquiry Committee.
Glaringly, this very Page 7 companypensation, which was found as being a shocking blunder by the enquiry companymittee, was further enhanced by the Apex Court in an SLP filed by some other claimants to Rs 297/sq yd.,
Reiterating the position of law expounded by the High Court, the appellant argued that it was the companyduct of a judicial officer in discharge of her duties, and number the legality companyrectness of her decision, companyld be subjected to disciplinary action.
and appeals filed by the Local Development Authority had been dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX 3.
Page 2 others illegally and against all judicial numberms and propriety awarding to the claimants solatium, additional amount and interest over and above the rate at which two other claimants had entered into companypromise which was inclusive of such other benefits at an enhanced rate of Rs.265/ per sq.
Leave Granted.
1, had been rejected.
yard as against Rs.74.40 determined by the S.L.A.O. for land area 276 Bighas 12 Biswas and 15 Biswansi, unduly awarded an additional amount of Rs.47,73,39,903.86 which leads to an inference that you were actuated by extraneous companysiderations and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and companyplete devotion to duty and you thus companymitted misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of UP Govt.
State of U.P. and 35 Agra Development Authority v. State of UP, 2004 All LJ 1853.
Subsequently, an enquiry was companyducted and the Enquiry Committee through its report dated 09.09.2005 held that both the charges had been proved for these were errors apparent in both cases which were such shocking blunders that they companyld number be attributed to mere misjudgment, and companysequently were proved to be deliberate.
