Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3196
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, CJ, VIVEK JAIN, J
ROOP SINGH ALAWA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 18931 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Prahlad Choudhary, Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma
For the Respondents: Dr. S.S. Chouhan, Shri Anoop Nair, Shri Mihir Linawat
A judicial officer's dismissal for misconduct must reflect the severity of the act, ensuring that misjudgment without corrupt intent does not equate to dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Service Jurisprudence - Discipline and misconduct - Judicial indiscipline - High Court's role in maintaining judicial integrity - The dismissal of a judicial officer must align with the severity of the misconduct in relation to their service record and established principles of law. (Paras 22, 23, 24, 25)
(B) Judicial Officer - Standards of conduct - The standard of conduct for judicial officers requires absolute integrity and adherence to judicial propriety. Misjudgment without corrupt intent does not equate to misconduct leading to dismissal. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a judicial officer, challenged his dismissal following allegations of a judicial impropriety in granting bail after multiple rejections by the High Court. A departmental inquiry found no corruption but noted a failure in maintaining judicial discipline.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was deemed shockingly disproportionate considering the petitioner's long, unblemished career and nearing retirement age.
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner's actions constituted misconduct warranting dismissal and whether the dismissal's severity was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner’s error was a misjudgment rather than misconduct, emphasizing that without malign intent, an error in judgment should not lead to dismissal.
Result: Petition allowed; dismissal replaced with withholding increments without cumulative effect.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's dismissal contested due to unblemished service record. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. judicial impropriety allegations discussed regarding bail decisions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondents argue for upholding dismissal on discipline grounds. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court examines misconduct allegations against dismissal severity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. inquiry findings frame the context of judicial discipline. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. judicial confusion acknowledged with contradictory high court orders. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 7. court replaces dismissal with lesser penalty based on service record. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
ORDER
(Reserved on : 23/04/2025) (Pronounced on : 01/05/2025)
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/7 dated 19.10.2015 whereby the petitioner who was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge being member of the M.P. Higher Judicial Services, has been dismissed from service by the Government of M.P. by its Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, based upon the recommendation made by the Full Court of the High Court which in turn endorsed the decision taken by the concerned Administrative Committee of the High Court. Consequent to order Annexure P/7 the petitioner had preferred an appeal and the said appeal has also been rejected by order dated 02.03.2017 and communicated vide letter dated 17.07.2017.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Civil Judge Class-II in the year 1987 and upon satisfactory discharge of his duty, was promoted to the post Additional District and Sessions Judge on 12.04.2004. It is further the case of the petitioner that his career was unblemished from initial date of appointment i.e. 1987 till the present matter arose which lead to his ultimate dismissal from service.
3. It has been categorically stated by the petitioner that apart from the present allegation against him leading to his dismissal from service by order Annexure P/7 dated 19.10.2015, there is nothing on record against the petitioner in his entire service career.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while projecting the case of the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 dated 13.03.2014 levelling the charge that on 09.11.2012 in pending Sessions Trial No. 248/2010 (State of M.P. Vs. Hakim and others) with corrupt or oblique motive or for some extraneous consideration the petitioner allowed the bail application of the accused Hakim facing accusation under Sections 302, 120-B and 147 of IPC which was after rejection of his four successive bail applications by the High Court on 09.03.2011, 09.12.2011, 17.02.2012 and 17.09.2012. However, despite the High Court having repeatedly dismissed the bail applications of the same accused, the grant of bail by the petitioner to said accused person was alleged to be against judicial discipline and propriety and therefore, he was alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty expected of a judicial officer. Therefore, on such allegations, he was visited with the charge sheet.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the accused Hakim whose bail application has been allowed by the petitioner had earlier filed first bail application before this Court which was dismissed as not pressed on 09.03.2011. However, when second bail application registered as M.Cr.C. No. 7617/2011 was filed, the same was decided by the High Court on 09.12.2011 and in the said order the High Court held that the trial court shall decide the trial within a period of four months and if the trial is not concluded within the said period then the accused would be at liberty to move fresh application before the trial court which shall be considered by the trial court in view of the material available before the trial court. It is argued that indeed subsequent bail applications were also considered by the High Court i.e. third bail a
