Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Judge Who Acquitted Accused In Criminal Trials Without Writing A Judgment

The petitioner by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the imposition of punishment of removal of service from the post of Civil Judge Class-II passed by the first respondent- Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Department on the recommendation of the second respondent- High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain said, “The Enquiry Officer after scrutinising the matter, came to the conclusion that the delivery of the judgment without writing it and adjourning the cases without drawing any order sheet by the petitioner amounts to grave misconduct, therefore the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as expected of a Judicial Officer. Such acts of the petitioner being unbecoming of a judicial officer amount to grave misconduct under Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 which are punishable under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966.”

Senior Advocate Rameshwar Singh Thakur represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate Anubhav Jain represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Peititoner was selected through the M.P. Public Service Commission, and he joined as Civil Judge Class District Narsinghpur. After completion of training, he was posted at District Chhatarpur in 2009. In the year 2011, he was posted at Tehsil Niwas, District Mandla. It was the further the case of the Petitioner that while he was posted at Tehsil Niwas, District Mandla, a surprise inspection was carried out by the District Judge (Vigilance) wherein it was alleged that in three criminal cases, final verdict had been delivered by him without writing a judgment and in other two criminal cases, the same were adjourned without drawing order-sheets.

On the said allegations levelled against the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued to him annexing the article of charges to it. A departmental enquiry was conducted against him and he was held guilty of grave misconduct under Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1965. A penalty of removal from service was imposed, and the appeal against the same was dismissed. Hence, being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was filed.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the charges were proved against the petitioner. The charges were of grave misconduct as he acquitted the accused in criminal trials without writing a judgment. “He was afforded due opportunity of hearing to put his defence and after considering his reply, the said decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority and the Court. The scope of judicial review is very limited in such a case”, it said.

The petitioner was claiming parity with one Siddharth Sharma, who was also working as a Civil Judge Class-II and was awarded a lesser punishment by witholding his two increments with cumulative effect. The Bench stated that the charges levelled against Sharma were different from the case in hand and he was not a co-delinquent at all.

“...we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents imposing the punishment of removal from service that calls for any interference”, the Bench said while dismissing the Petition.

Cause Title: Mahendra Singh Taram v. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:17999)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rameshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate Vinayak Prasad Shah

Respondent: Government Advocate Anubhav Jain, Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari, Advocate Divya Pal

Click here to read/download Order