'Grave Misconduct': Madhya Pradesh HC Upholds Dismissal Of Civil Judge For Acquitting Accused Without Writing Judgment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a civil judge for acquitting accused in criminal trials without writing a judgement. The Court stated that the charges are of 'grave misconduct' and cannot be condoned.The division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain observed, “When we look into the record, it is noted that all the five charges were proved against the petitioner. The charges are of grave misconduct that he acquitted the accused in criminal trials without writing a judgment, which are obviously of serious nature. The same cannot be condoned. All the charges levelled against him are relating to criminal cases. 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 Full Court. The scope of judicial review is very limited in such a case.”A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the imposition of punishment of removal from service on the post of Civil Judge Class-II passed by the respondent No.1/Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Department on the recommendation of the respondent No.2/High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner also challenged the order whereby his appeal/representation preferred against the order of punishment was also rejected.As per the petition, the petitioner was selected through M.P. Public Service Commission and joined as a Civil Judge Class II. It was submitted that while he was posted at Tehsil Niwas, District Mandla, a surprise inspection was carried out by District Judge (Vigilance) wherein it was alleged that the petitioner in three criminal cases delivered the final verdict without writing a judgement and two other criminal cases were adjourned without drawing order-sheets.Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him and department inquiry was conducted against him. The Enquiry Officer found all the five charges proved and the petitioner was held guilty of grave misconduct under Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The petitioner submitted his reply requesting to absolve him from the charges levelled against him. As per resolution of the Full Court, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of removal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said punishment was also dismissed. The counsel for petitioner contended that in identical facts and circumstances, another similarly placed judicial officer who was also working as Civil Judge Class – II was imposed with much lesser punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. However, the said fact was totally ignored in the case of the petitioner.The counsel further argued that the impugned orders were arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the evidence recorded during the Departmental Enquiry has not been considered in proper perspective. Further, it is submitted that mistake was bonafide as the petitioner was performing the duties under the pressure of workload as well as personal difficulty. On the contrary, the counsel for Respondent No. 2 and 3/Principal Registrar (Vigilance) High Court Of Madhya Pradesh contended that parity of punishment can only be pleaded in a common enquiry. It was submitted that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved in the departmental inquiry, hence, the punishment of removal from service was rightly imposed.The Court noted that the Enquiry Officer after scrutinizing the matter concluded 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.On perusal of the record, the Court further noted that all five charges were proved against the petitioner and since the charges were of 'grave misconduct', it cannot be condoned. With regard to petitioner's contention on parity of punishment with similarly placed judicial officer, the Court said that the petitioner cannot claim negative parity with the other as both the disciplinary proceedings were different and not on similar footing.The petition was hence, dismissed.Case Title: Mahendra Singh Taram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 14113 of 2017Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 92Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Grave Misconduct': Madhya Pradesh HC Upholds Dismissal Of Civil Judge For Acquitting Accused Without Writing Judgment

Anukriti Mishra

Tags