The central legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary actions against judicial officers must be based on concrete evidence and cannot be sustained on surmises or conjunctures.

ORDER

1. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services as a Civil Judge Class-II on 25.10.1985. He was promoted to the Higher Judicial Services on 09.06.1997 and was designated as permanent on 03.01.2002. He was appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade on 09.06.2002. On 13.02.2003, a memorandum of charges was served on the petitioner while he was posted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen. The respondent No.2 namely the High Court of Madhya Pradesh proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against him under Rule 14 (IV) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The charges against the petitioner related to certain judicial orders passed by him between 21.06.2001 to 12.08.2002 when he was posted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge at Guna.

2. A reply was submitted by the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiring Officer submitted his detailed report to the Disciplinary Authority exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. It was held that the charges were not proved. The matter was placed before the Disciplinary Authority. On 18.11.2005, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the High Court indicating that the High Court disagrees with the findings of the Enquiring Officer with respect to Charge Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. It is also stated in the notice that the findings of the Enquiring Officer on Charge Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are liable to be reversed as he is found guilty of the said charges and consequently as to why he should not be punished for the said charges. A reply was furnished to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the impugned order was issued to the petitioner compulsorily retiring him from service. Questioning the same, the instant writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the act of the respondents is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. That even though, the Enquiring Officer held that the charges have not been proved, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the findings recorded on Charge Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have been wrongly considered by the Enquiring Officer and reversed the same. That the said reversal is based on mere inference that is drawn by the Disciplinary Authority. That in spite of making a request there was no grant of opportunity of a personal hearing to the writ petitioner. The entire allegations against the petitioner were with reference to certain judicial orders passed by him while he was serving as an Additional District Judge at Guna. They are all judicial matters and could not have been interfered with. Even otherwise, the sole consideration were the judicial orders. There is no complaint against the petitioner in his entire career as a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services. Therefore, it would appear that the respondents have victimized the petitioner and have wrongly removed him from service.

4. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents through their return. They dispute the contentions raised by the petitioner. They contend that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in reversing the findings of the Enquiring Officer. That the petitioner being a judicial officer is expected to maintain the highest degree of honesty and integrity. He has failed to do so. The acts of omission and commission by the petitioner have led a doubt as to the reputation of the petitioner. Therefore, such a Judicial Officer could not have been continued in the services of the Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Services. Therefore, they were justified in passing the impugned order.

5. Heard learned counsels.

6. The charges leveled against the petitioner are as follows:

ARTICLE-I

That you, in Bail Application No. 341/2002, granted interim bail to a person accused of offence under section 49-A of Excise Act which related to possession of liquor unfit for human consumption and in this case t