Judicial officers can face severe penalties for misconduct, and the principle of parity in disciplinary actions applies only within similar context; otherwise, penalties are at the discretion of the disciplinary authority.

ORDER

Per: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) Summon the entire material records from the possession of the respondents pertaining to passing of impugned orders, for its kind perusal;

(ii) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 02.09.2014 (Annexure-P/1) and 01.08.2016 (Annexure P/2).

(iii) Command and direct the respondents to restore petitioner back in Judicial Service (without any break) with all consequential benefits of pay, perks and status and arrears thereof with appropriate rate of interest thereon till its realization; OR in the alternate punishment which has been imposed upon may kindly be substituted by an appropriate moderate/minor one;

(iv) Any other order/orders, direction/ directions may also be passed;

(v) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded.”

2. The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the imposition of punishment of removal from service on the post of Civil Judge Class-II vide order dated 02.09.2014 (Annexure P/1) 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 dated 01.08.2016 whereby his appeal/representation preferred against the order of punishment was also rejected.

3. The case of the petitioner as narrated in the petition is that he was selected through M.P. Public Service Commission on 29.07.2003 and he joined as Civil Judge Class-II (as trainee) at District Narsinghpur. After completion of training, he was posted at District Chhatarpur on 15.05.2009. Thereafter, he was transferred to Tehsil Nowgong, District Chhatarpur in December, 2009. On 03.12.2011, he was posted at Tehsil Niwas, District Mandla. It is further case of the petitioner that while he was posted at Tehsil Niwas, District Mandla, a surprise inspection was carried out on 04.12.2012 by the District Judge (Vigilance) wherein it was alleged that in three criminal cases, final verdict has been delivered by him without writing a judgment and in other two criminal cases, the same were adjourned without drawing order-sheets.

4. On the said allegations levelled against the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued to him on 11.12.2012 annexing the article of charges to it. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice as well as article of charges vide Annexure P/4 and P/6. However, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The Enquiry Officer found all the five charges proved vide enquiry reported dated 21.03.2014 and he was held guilty of grave misconduct under Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short “the Rules of 1965”). The petitioner submitted his reply in his defence requesting to absolve him from the charges levelled against him. As per resolution of the Full Court dated 19.07.2014, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of removal from service vide impugned order dated 02.09.2014 and the appeal preferred against the said punishment order was also dismissed. Hence, being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. The main thrust of the contention as raised in para 6.15 by the learned counsel for petitioner is that in the identical facts and circumstances, other similarly placed judicial