Preposterous To Assume Judges Can't Commit Mistake While Passing Orders: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Compulsory Retirement Of ADJ After 9 Yrs

Rajasthan High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon an Additional District and Sessions Judge in 2015 for allowing the second bail application filed by a murder accused, despite having knowledge of the fact that the first bail application was rejected by the High Court and there was a pending transfer petition in front of the High Court. Subsequently, the complainant in that case appeared in the proceedings for the accused's 2nd bail petition to seek adjournment on the grounds that a transfer petition was pending before the High Court, however, the Court allowed the second bail petition. In this light, the Court perused the inquiry report and observed that the gist of the inquiry report was that the petitioner was required to wait for the outcome of the transfer petition and it was gross misconduct on his part to decide the 2nd bail petition. The Court held that, “This is well remembered that timeline for disposal of bail petitions has been fixed by the High Courts and time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed9 that the bail petitions in subordinate Courts should ordinarily be decided within one week and in the High Courts within two or three weeks as far as practicable…transfer petition was listed for hearing on as many as 21 occasions between 21st May 2010 and 16th November 2011 when it was eventually dismissed as infructuous…This is one of the canons of judicial ethics that the judicial officers perform their duties without unnecessary delays and ensure that the justice is not delayed.” The Court held that mere pendency of the transfer petition was not such a compelling reason for the petitioner not to deal with the 2nd bail petition.