Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan High Court's Disciplinary Proceedings Against Judge Over Bail Order
The Supreme Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Rajasthan judicial officer(since retired) for granting bail to two accused persons despite their earlier bail applications having been rejected by the High Court, observing that counselling or a warning would have sufficed in the peculiar facts of the case.
A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya directed the Rajasthan Government and the High Court to recompute the officer's pay under the revised pay scale and release his terminal benefits, including pension and arrears, within three months, subject to there being no other legal impediment.
The case concerned Mukesh Tyagi, who was serving as a Special Judge under the POCSO Act at Dholpur when he granted bail to two accused persons in May 2019. The Rajasthan High Court subsequently cancelled the bail, observing that no change in circumstances had occurred after the accused persons' earlier bail applications were rejected.
Following the High Court's direction to place its order before the Chief Justice, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner-judicial officer under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, alleging gross judicial impropriety and indiscipline, following which the petitioner moved the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's observations but separately held that the disciplinary inquiry was unwarranted in the circumstances.
“…in the facts and circumstances of this case, the initiation of an inquiry was not at all required. Possibly the entry of the remarks of the learned Single Judge in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) would have sufficed. We have also stated, the petitioner/judicial officer could have been counseled and warned to be more careful in future and to give sufficient weightage to the orders of the High Court particularly when the same were passed earlier in the same case by the High Court. In the circumstance, we find that the Memorandum dated 25.10.2024 at Annexure P-6, the statement of charges under Rule 16 of the Rules, the allegation of charge etc. were not warranted for in the instant case.”, the Court held.
The Court also noted that the petitioner's Annual Confidential Reports were positive and that he had retired on March 31, 2026, while his revised pay and terminal benefits remained unreleased.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the disciplinary memorandum dated October 25, 2024, and the related charges. It clarified that the decision was confined to the peculiar facts of the case.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. P.S Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv. Mr. Madhur Jain, Adv. Ms. Aakrti Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Parmatma Singh- 2452, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.Udaya Kumar Sagar- 1132, AOR Mr. Mukul Kumar-1722, AOR Ms. Shruti Narayan, Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj, Adv. Ms. Nida Khan Salim, Adv.