“Disgusting” And “Grossest, Grave Misconduct” : Supreme Court Pulls Up Judicial Officer Over Alleged Train Coach Urination And Ruckus, Stays Reinstatement
From the Ediotr's Desk
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed the termination of a judicial officer and ordered his reinstatement, in a case alleging he created a disturbance on a train, exposed himself to a woman passenger, and urinated inside the compartment.
A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and issued notice on a petition filed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh through its Registrar General, challenging the High Court Division Bench order that had interfered with the termination and directed reinstatement.
During the hearing, the top court signaled strong disapproval of the alleged behaviour, observing orally that the episode, as presented, reflected extremely serious misconduct and merited the severest service consequence. The Bench described the allegations as deeply shocking. “He urinated in compartment! There was a lady present”, Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked.
The Court said: "Disgusting conduct by a judicial officer. Grossest, grave misconduct. He should have been dismissed".
Counsel appearing for the respondent on caveat told the Court that a medical examination report indicated the officer was not intoxicated at the relevant time, contesting the narrative that he acted in a drunken state.
The case relates to an incident in 2018 involving a Civil Judge (Class-II) in Madhya Pradesh. The officer was proceeded against for allegedly misbehaving with co-passengers, abusing the train conductor/TTE while the official was on duty, and misusing his position by showing his identity card and issuing threats. He was also alleged to have travelled without prior permission or informing the controlling authority or district judge about his absence. After the incident, both criminal and departmental proceedings were initiated; though he secured bail after his arrest, he reportedly did not notify his controlling officer.
While the officer was later acquitted in the criminal case after key witnesses—including the TTE and the alleged victim passenger—did not support the prosecution, the departmental inquiry recorded evidence from witnesses who spoke about obscene conduct, obstruction of a public servant, and misuse of authority.
After the inquiry officer held the charges proved, the High Court’s Administrative Committee recommended removal. That recommendation was approved by the Full Court, following which the Governor issued an order terminating the officer’s services.
The officer then moved the High Court. A Division Bench partially allowed his challenge, set aside the termination order despite the departmental findings, and directed reinstatement. The Division Bench, however, left room for a minor penalty limited to the alleged procedural lapses related to travel permission and failure to intimate the High Court about the arrest.
Challenging the reinstatement order, the High Court’s Registrar General has moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the officer’s alleged conduct was incompatible with the standards expected of a judicial officer and that extensive media coverage damaged public confidence in the institution.
The petition also points out that criminal trials require proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas disciplinary proceedings are decided on a preponderance of probabilities. On that basis, it contends that the Division Bench wrongly treated the criminal acquittal as conclusive and improperly interfered with the departmental findings.
Further, it submits that the Division Bench exceeded the limits of judicial review by effectively recalibrating the punishment on proportionality grounds. “The Hon'ble High Court, by transposing the higher criminal standard, disregarded the very rationale underlying service jurisprudence and nullified reasoned findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Administrative Committee, and the Full Court.”
Case Title: High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Navneet Singh Yadav & Anr.,
Case No.: Diary No. 62653-2025.
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
