'Disgusting': Supreme Court Slams Judicial Officer Accused Of Urinating In Train Coach & Creating Ruckus, Stays His Reinstatement

The Supreme Court today stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which set aside the termination and directed reinstatement of a judicial officer who allegedly caused nuisance onboard a train, flashed a woman passenger and urinated in the compartment.

The Court orally remarked that the judicial officer's conduct amounted to "grossest grave misconduct" and that he should have been dismissed. The Court found the case to be shocking and remarked that the officer's conduct was "disgusting".

"He urinated in compartment! There was a lady present", noted Justice Sandeep Mehta.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Mehta heard the matter and issued notice on the plea filed by the High Court, through its Registrar General, against a Division Bench's order.

During the hearing, the respondent's counsel (appearing on caveat) told the Court that as per the medical examination report, the respondent was not intoxicated at the relevant time.

As the record would show, respondent No.1, a Civil Judge (Class-II) in MP, was terminated over nuisance he caused in 2018 while aboard a train. He was accused of misbehaving with co-passengers in a drunken state and abusing the Conductor/TTE (a public servant on duty). According to claims, he even flashed a woman passenger and urinated on a seat. He further showed his identity card to the co-passengers and threatened them.

Allegedly, he was also travelling without prior permission or intimation to the Controlling Officer/District Judge regarding his absence.

Following the incident, two parallel proceedings (criminal and departmental) were initiated against the judicial officer. After his arrest, he obtained bail but did not inform his Controlling Officer.

Ultimately, in the criminal proceedings, he was acquitted as witnesses (including the TTE and victim passenger) turned hostile. However, in the departmental proceedings, several deposed about the judicial officer's "obscene" conduct, misuse of authority and obstruction of a public servant.

After the Enquiry Officer found all charges proved, the Administrative Committee recommended the judicial officer's removal. The penalty was approved by the Full bench of the High Court. Thereafter, the Governor issued a termination order against him.

Aggrieved, the judicial officer approached the High Court. Partly allowing his petition, the Division Bench set aside the termination order passed by the Governor, even though there were concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Enquiry officer, the Administrative Committee and the Full bench of the High Court.

Directing his reinstatement, it granted liberty for imposition of only a minor penalty for travelling without prior permission and not giving intimation to the High Court as regards his arrest.

Challenging this order, the High Court Registrar General filed the present plea. The plea states that respondent No.1's conduct at the time of the incident was unbecoming of a judicial officer. Further, the incident was widely reported, thereby undermining the sanctity of the judiciary as a whole.

The plea highlights that while the standard of proof for criminal proceedings is "beyond reasonable doubt", that for departmental proceedings is "preponderance of probabilities". As such, the Division Bench erroneously interfered with the departmental action, taking the outcome of the criminal proceedings as determinative of the judicial officer's innocence.

The plea further emphasizes that by substituting its own penalty on the ground of proportionality, the Division Bench went beyond the scope of judicial review. "The Hon'ble High Court, by transposing the higher criminal standard, disregarded the very rationale underlying service jurisprudence and nullified reasoned findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Administrative Committee, and the Full Court."

Case Title: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. Versus NAVNEET SINGH YADAV AND ANR., Diary No. 62653-2025