In an extraordinary “judge versus court” battle, a Haryana judicial officer has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the denial of promotion, questioning whether mere pendency of a vigilance matter—without even a decision to chargesheet him—can be used to stall his career advancement.
Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ellenabad in Sirsa district, Prateet Singh Dhonchak, has filed a writ petition against the High Court through its Registrar-General, alleging arbitrary and discriminatory withholding of his promotion to the post of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), despite juniors being promoted.
The matter came up before a Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, which requested senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram to assist the court as amicus curiae and fixed May 22 for further hearing.
Among other things, the petitioner’s counsel Dr MM Dhonchak has raised a series of unusually pointed questions on judicial administration, the scope of Article 235 of the Constitution, the sanctity of Full Court decisions, and the balance between institutional discipline and individual judicial independence.
The questions include: whether pendency of a complaint before the Vigilance Disciplinary Committee (VDC) “would ipso facto render” a judicial officer unsuitable for promotion “despite the fact of the same being in utter negation of the criteria laid down by none other than the Full Court”;
whether an ACR remark stating “complaint is pending consideration of VDC” could be treated on a par with “integrity doubtful”, especially when his overall grading remained “B Plus (Good)”; and whether “a half-baked and admittedly incomplete remark”, dependent upon the eventual outcome of vigilance proceedings, could “ring a knell to the career prospects of a Judicial Officer”.
The petitioner has also questioned whether Article 235 forces judicial officers to surrender dignity to survive in the judiciary. “Whether Article 235 of the Constitution of India permits that willy-nilly a Judicial Officer has to compromise his self-respect and dignity and play a Machiavelli par excellence and there is almost a refrain for him to call ‘a spade a spade’, if he has to survive as a Judge in the District Judiciary?” the petitioner asked.
He has also questioned: “Whether an Administrative Judge while being in a patently chasing mode to settle scores with a Judicial Officer is allowed to travel beyond his jurisdiction if he fails to obtain any material to put such a conscientious and intrepid Judge on the mat with regard to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Division allotted to him by the Chief Justice?”
