The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the dismissal of a Civil Judge Class-II for serious judicial misconduct, including clearing accused individuals without issuing verdicts. Learn the key details and legal implications of this significant judgment.

Background of the Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the dismissal of a Civil Judge Class-II accused of grave judicial misconduct. The judge allegedly cleared defendants in multiple criminal cases without delivering written judgments, a serious breach of legal protocol.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain declared that all five allegations against the petitioner were proven. The misconduct involved finalizing criminal cases without writing judgments and adjourning cases without maintaining order-sheets.

Details of the Departmental Enquiry

The judge was appointed via the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and served in Tehsil Niwas, District Mandla. During a surprise inspection by the District Judge (Vigilance), it was found that:

• He passed verdicts in three criminal cases without writing judgments.

• Two cases were adjourned without drawing order-sheets.

Subsequently, a departmental inquiry was launched, and a show-cause notice was served. As per Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, the judge was found guilty of grave misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority recommended dismissal, which was approved by the Full Court.

Legal Challenge Under Article 226

The judge filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the dismissal. He also claimed that his appeals and representations were denied unfairly.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner claimed a violation of Articles 14 and 16 (Right to Equality and Equal Opportunity).

• He argued that another similarly placed judge received a lighter punishment — only two increments withheld.

• It was contended that the alleged errors were unintentional, caused by personal hardship and excessive workload.

Respondent’s Defense

The High Court’s counsel argued that:

• Parity in punishment can only be claimed if both officers were investigated jointly.

• In this case, the departmental inquiry independently validated each charge against the petitioner.

• The punishment of termination from service was deemed appropriate and proportionate.

Court’s Final Observation and Judgment

The bench held that the charges were of serious judicial misconduct, which cannot be overlooked. The judge’s actions reflected a lack of integrity and devotion to duty, which are essential qualities for any judicial officer.

Regarding the claim of unequal punishment, the Court clarified that negative parity cannot be claimed if the inquiries were not identical in procedure or findings.

As a result, the petition was dismissed, and the dismissal from service was upheld.

Conclusion

This case sets a strong precedent on judicial accountability and reinforces the importance of integrity in the judiciary. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that grave misconduct by judicial officers will not be tolerated, especially when it compromises the justice system.