MACT Matters
The Division bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetrapal, refused to drop disciplinary proceeding against the judicial officer who awarded substantially heavy amounts as compensation in MACT cases.
Judicial officer Sudhir Jiwan, a member of superior judicial services, sought quashing of charge sheet and rejection of the prayer of dropping disciplinary enquiry against him.
The charges against him, were that while posted as Additional District and Session Judge, he awarded sums ranging from 25,000/- to 45,000/- in seven MACT Cases, under the head of ‘Loss of love and affection’, and awarded substantially heavy amount of 20,69,688/- and 18,25,400/- in a MACT Case under the same head ‘loss of love and affection’ without giving any justifiable grounds or reasons and without relying upon or referring to any case law/precedent for awarding such huge amount of compensation.
It was further charged that he awarded such a heavy amount for some extraneous considerations.
The Petitioner challenged that the decision taken by the judicial officer on judicial side is immune from rigours of disciplinary proceedings on the administrative side.
While rejecting the argument of petitioner, the division bench ruled that,
“ 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.
7. 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 charge-sheet 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.
8. Consequently, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings commenced by the High Court against the petitioner and vacates the interim order passed by this Court on 23.03.2017 and permits the High Court to proceed with the departmental enquiry in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.”
The Petitioner side was represented by Advocate Mukesh Rao, and the Respondents side was represented by Advocate Divya Sharma.
Case Title-
Sudhir Jiwan v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Another, 2025:PHHC:016317-DB