1. Removal of a judicial officer from service for granting bail in four cases under the MP Excise Act without referring to Section 59-A. (Para 2 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Nirbhay Singh Suliya – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2026 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24570 of 2024]
Decided On : 05-01-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : Dama Seshadri Nadu, Yash S. Vijay, Kanu Agarwal, Chetan Kanungo, Shikhar Aggarwal, Anisha Mahajan
For the Respondents: Arjun Garg, Sagun Srivastava, Arushi Kulshrestha, Saaransh Shukla, Ankit Rajgarhia, Muskan Bensla, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Shashank Shekhar, Meghraj Singh, Ratnesh Kumar
For the Appellants : Dama Seshadri Nadu, Yash S. Vijay, Kanu Agarwal, Chetan Kanungo, Shikhar Aggarwal, Anisha Mahajan
For the Respondents: Arjun Garg, Sagun Srivastava, Arushi Kulshrestha, Saaransh Shukla, Ankit Rajgarhia, Muskan Bensla, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Shashank Shekhar, Meghraj Singh, Ratnesh Kumar
Judicial officers cannot be penalized merely for error in judgment; substantial evidence of misconduct is necessary for disciplinary action, reinforcing the duty to protect judicial independence.
Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 - Section 59-A - Removal of judicial officer after 27 years of service based solely on four bail orders criticized - The High Court found that the appellant did not refer to Section 59-A in these orders, establishing a reasoning of double standards against him. In total, he allowed fewer bail applications than he rejected, showing no bias. (Paras 2, 4, 23, 40)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The need for substantial evidence against a judicial officer is emphasized; mere suspicion or the possibility of error in judgment is insufficient for disciplinary action. The inquiry findings were deemed perverse without supporting evidence. (Paras 26, 36, 41, 43)
Facts of the case:
After a general complaint alleging corruption against the appellant regarding bail decisions, a preliminary inquiry was initiated, leading to disciplinary action based on the finding related to four bail orders. The appellant contended he acted judiciously based on case circumstances.
Findings of Court:
The inquiry lacked credible evidence against the appellant, and his removal was not justified. His actions were consistent with legal principles.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the legality of the removal based solely on the inquiry's findings, the lack of substantial evidence, and the principles governing judicial actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere erroneous decisions do not constitute misconduct, highlighting that judicial officers should not face disciplinary actions based solely on erroneous exercise of discretion in the absence of corrupt motives.
Result: Appeal allowed; removal order set aside with reinstatement and full back wages awarded.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
Judicial officers cannot be penalized solely for errors in judgment; disciplinary action requires substantial evidence of misconduct, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence (!) (!) .
-
Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers should be initiated only when there is clear, credible evidence of misconduct or extraneous considerations, not merely on the basis of wrong decisions or errors of judgment (!) (!) .
-
Wrong exercise of jurisdiction or mistakes of law, without evidence of corrupt motives or extraneous influences, do not constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary action (!) (!) .
-
The standard of proof for misconduct is supportive evidence that indicates the decision was not an honest exercise of judicial power; mere suspicion or error does not suffice (!) (!) .
-
Disciplinary action based on a set of judicial orders must be supported by material showing misconduct or corrupt intent; passing orders that are legally sound or based on valid reasoning should not be grounds for punishment (!) (!) .
-
The inquiry process must be fair, and findings should be supported by record evidence; perverse or unsupported conclusions are grounds for interference by higher courts (!) (!) .
-
A judicial officer's order, even if erroneous, does not automatically imply misconduct unless it reflects a reckless or dishonest approach, or is actuated by extraneous considerations (!) (!) .
-
Disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely because a different conclusion was possible; each case depends on its facts and the evidence supporting misconduct (!) (!) .
-
The independence and fearless discharge of judicial duties are vital; unwarranted disciplinary actions based on trivial or motivated complaints threaten judicial integrity and the rule of law (!) (!) .
-
The overarching principle is that disciplinary measures require clear, cogent evidence of misconduct, corruption, or extraneous influence; errors or wrong decisions alone do not justify penal action (!) (!) .
-
The process of initiating disciplinary action must be cautious, ensuring that it does not undermine judicial independence or deter honest exercise of judicial discretion (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the decision to discipline a judicial officer must be grounded in substantial, credible evidence and not on mere hypotheses, suspicion, or erroneous orders alone (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice regarding this case.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends error of law is not misconduct; Respondent argues inconsistent application of statutory conditions indicates partiality and mala fides. (Para 23 , 24 )
3. Findings of misconduct based solely on judicial orders without evidence of corrupt motive or extraneous considerations are perverse and unsupported by record. (Para 40 , 41 )
4. A wrong judicial order or mistake of law cannot be the basis for disciplinary proceedings unless actuated by corrupt motive or extraneous considerations. (Para 29 , 33 , 38 )
5. Removal order set aside; appellant deemed to have continued in service with full back wages and consequential benefits. (Para 43 )
6. When can a judicial officer be subjected to disciplinary action for passing a wrong order?
Disciplinary action is warranted only if the officer acted with corrupt motive, extraneous considerations, recklessness, or in a manner reflecting poorly on integrity, rather than a mere error of judgment or technical violation. (Para 29 , 33 , 34 , 38 )
7. Does the failure to expressly refer to a statutory provision in a judicial order constitute misconduct?
No, a judgment not expressly referring to statutory provisions is not per se dishonest; a wrong decision can be a bona fide error of judgment or inadvertence. (Para 33 , 40 )
8. What is the standard for judicial review of findings in a departmental inquiry against a judicial officer?
While courts do not act as appellate authorities over inquiry reports, they can interfere if findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or such that no reasonable person would reach them. (Para 41 , 42 )
9. How should High Courts handle complaints against the subordinate judiciary to maintain judicial independence?
High Courts must exercise caution to protect honest officers from frivolous or motivated complaints, ensuring disciplinary proceedings are not initiated solely because a judicial order is incorrect. (Para 28 , 29 , 36 , 37 )
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This case highlights the unfortunate plight of a judicial officer (appellant herein) who, after 27 years of unblemished service, was removed from service. The sole and exclusive basis on which the appellant has been removed are four judicial orders by which he enlarged certain parties thereon on bail. Those four orders were contrasted with fourteen other orders of bail and after finding that in the four orders Section 59 -A of the Madhya Pradesh EXCISE ACT , 1915 (for short the “ EXCISE ACT ”) was not referred to, action has been taken. According to the High Court, in the fourteen other orders the appellant referred to the said Section implying thereby that he was conscious of the existence of the said Section on the statute. -A prescribes what has now famously come to be known as “twin conditions” for grant of bail.
3. The question before us is whether on facts, based on the four judicial orders of grant of bail per se and without anything more, the authorities were justified in removing the appellant from service?
4. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant joined service on 31.10.1987 as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service. The appellant scaled the ladder up and in 2003 was promoted as Additional District Judge and in September, 2008 was confirmed in the said post. On 16.05.2011, he was transferred to Khargone, District Mandaleshwar (MP), where he joined as First Additional District & Sessions Judge. In the course of discharge of his duties, he dealt with several matters, including bail applications under the EXCISE ACT .
5. One Jaipal Mehta, a resident of Jaitapur, Khargone, lodged a complaint with the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur. The complaint which did not set out any details of the bail orders and which was in very general terms reads as under:
“Subject: Regarding disposal of cases under Section 34(2) of IPC.
Sir,
In Reference to above subject matter, it is requested that First ADJ Sh. Suliya posted in Khargone, District-West Nimar, Mandleshwar by taking bribe through his Steno namely Anil Joshi, Clerk, is granting bails in the cases of Section 34 /2 of EXCISE ACT i.e. of 50 Bulk Ltrs. of liquor, whereas, ADJ/Sessions Judge has no power to allow said bail applications. Said Bails are allowed by the High Court. Anil Joshi, Steno challenges in each and every case that either you bring case of 302, 307, Claim or Civil Case, I have good setting with sir, I will get it resolved, rest you have to pay money as per my wishes. Due to such corrupt employee, the judiciary is getting defamed. Injustice is being done with the aggrieved parties in place of giving them justice. Who will be responsible for it? Previously in the year 1995-196, the serious complaints of bribe were also made against the said corrupt employee, on which, no action was taken. Aforesaid employee is posted in Khargone since last 25 years and is earning money by doing setting with Advocates openly. If the enquiry of his account be conducted, then, the truth will be exposed. If, the trust of public loses confidence in judiciary then, will be possible of military rule jungle raj.”
6. It will be seen that according to the complaint, the allegation was that the appellant was taking bribe through his steno, namely, Anil Joshi for grant of bail in cases under the EXCISE ACT in which the quantity of seized liquor was 50 Bulk liters or more; that the said Anil Joshi was claiming that he will get the work done through the appellant for extraneous consideration; that due to such corrupt employee, the judiciary was getting defamed; that even in 1995-96, serious complaints of bribery were made against the said employee on which no action was taken; that the said employee has been posted in Khargone for more than 25 years and is earning money through illegal means and that an inquiry is essential.
7. It appears from the counter affidavit filed before this Co
