'No Disciplinary Action Against Judge For Mere Error In Judgment' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal Of Judicial Officer

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the dismissal of a Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, holding that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against members of the district judiciary merely for passing allegedly incorrect or erroneous judicial orders.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan allowed the appeal filed by Nirbhay Singh Suliya, who had been removed from service in 2014 while serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on allegations of corruption and adopting a “double standard” in deciding bail applications under the Excise Act.

The action followed a departmental inquiry initiated by the High Court after allegations that he had adopted a double standard while deciding bail applications in cases registered under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. It was alleged that he granted bail in certain cases involving seizure of more than 50 bulk litres of liquor, while rejecting bail in several other similar cases on the ground that bail cannot be granted as the seized quantity is more than 50 bulk litres.

Caution Against Mechanical Disciplinary Proceedings

Justice KV Vishwanathan, who wrote the main judgment, emphasised that High Courts must exercise great caution while initiating disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers. He observed that merely because an order is wrong, or there is an error of judgment, a judicial officer should not be put through the ordeal of departmental proceedings “without anything more”.

Caution must be exercised by the High Courts in initiating disciplinary proceedings. It should be ensured that only because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgement without anything more judicial officer is not put through the ordeal of such proceedings

The Court underlined that such proceedings have a chilling effect on the independence of the district judiciary and often discourage trial court judges from exercising discretion, particularly in bail matters.

Justice Pardiwala, in his concurring judgment, noted that the lurking fear of administrative action has resulted in trial court judges becoming reluctant to grant bail even in deserving cases, leading to an excessive inflow of bail applications before the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

"The High Court, which is vested with the supervisory control, must keep in mind that the judicial officer of the district Judiciary works mostly in a charged atmosphere. A mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in the grant of bail by itself without anything more cannot be a ground to initiate departmental proceedings," Justice Pardiwala stated.

"It should not happen that because of the lurking fear in the mind of a trial court judge of some administrative action being taken that even in deserving cases well within the principles of law, bail is declined. This is one reason why the High Courts are flooded with bail applications. The same is the scenario in the Supreme Court," Justice Pardiwala noted.

False Complaints And Accountability Of The Bar

The Bench also issued strong directions to curb false and frivolous complaints against judicial officers. It held that proceedings must be initiated against persons found to be engineering such complaints, including, in appropriate cases, proceedings for contempt of court.

If the complainant is a recalcitrant member of the Bar, the Court said that apart from contempt action, a reference should be made to the Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings, with a direction to dispose of such references expeditiously.

At the same time, the Court clarified that where a complaint of misconduct against a judicial officer is found to be prima facie true, prompt disciplinary action must be initiated and no leniency should be shown if the charges are established. In appropriate cases, the High Courts should not hesitate to initiate criminal prosecution against judicial officers to “weed out black sheep sullying the fair name of the judiciary”.

Judicial Independence And Integrity

Justice Pardiwala stressed that while corruption at any level of the judiciary is intolerable and severely undermines public trust, a mere wrong order or incorrect exercise of discretion, by itself, cannot justify departmental proceedings.

The Court observed that judges of the district judiciary function in a charged atmosphere and wield powers essential to the justice delivery system. If their autonomy is compromised by fear of administrative action from higher courts, democracy and the rule of law would inevitably suffer.

Referring to MS Bindra v Union of India, the Bench reiterated that an officer's reputation and overall service record cannot be ignored while evaluating allegations of doubtful integrity. It held that suspicion based on mere hunches or possibilities is insufficient and that there must be reasonable material giving rise to a probability that would justify such conclusions.

The judgment, the Court observed, would go a long way in protecting judicial officers of the district judiciary from being subjected to departmental action for alleged wrong or incorrect exercise of judicial discretion, particularly in bail matters, without substantive material to support allegations of misconduct.

"To dunk an officer into the puddle of doubtful integrity, it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be components of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility; only then there is justification to ram an officer with a label of doubtful integrity," Justice Pardiwala stated.

Setting aside the dismissal, the Court directed that the appellant be deemed to have continued in service till the normal age of superannuation, with full back wages and all consequential benefits. The Bench ordered that the monetary benefits be released within eight weeks, carrying interest at the rate of 6%. A copy of the judgment has also been directed to be circulated to all High Courts.

Background

A departmental inquiry was conducted against Suliya under Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The inquiry officer found one of the two charges proved, holding that the officer had selectively granted bail in some cases while denying it in others, which was evident from the bail orders themselves.

The Administrative Committee of the High Court accepted the inquiry report and recommended the penalty of removal from service, which was approved by the Full Court. The State government issued the removal order on September 2, 2014. The Governor of Madhya Pradesh later rejected Suliya's statutory appeal in March 2016.

Challenging these actions, Suliya approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition, arguing that the bail orders, at most, reflected an erroneous exercise of judicial powers and could not amount to misconduct in the absence of proof of corruption or extraneous consideration. He also contended that the original complainant was not examined in the inquiry.

On July 25, 2024, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, that there was material to show adoption of a double standard, and that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 did not permit reappreciation of evidence or interference with the punishment imposed by the Full Court

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 24570/2024

Case Title – Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Click here to read the judgment