MP HC Quashes Judge’s Termination For Granting Bail Orders | Slams Feudal Mindset In Judiciary And Restores Back Wages With ₹5 Lakh Costs
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal allowed a writ petition filed by a former judicial officer and directed the quashing of the termination order issued against him. The court also directed full back wages with interest and restoration of pensionary benefits. The order included an additional cost of Rs. 5,00,000 to be paid jointly by the respondents. The petitioner had been dismissed from service based on findings of a departmental enquiry regarding the grant and denial of bail applications in a VYAPAM-related case. The court held that the termination was not sustainable in law and constituted gross injustice, particularly in the absence of any substantiated allegation of corruption.
The petitioner was initially appointed as Civil Judge Class II on 30.10.1987, confirmed in 1990, and subsequently promoted to Civil Judge Class I on 13.05.1994, Chief Judicial Magistrate on 09.09.1998, and to the Higher Judicial Service (Entry Grade) on 31.07.2000. He was awarded Selection Grade on 20.08.2008. The petitioner asserted a blemish-less service record with no prior punishments or notices.
On 24.02.2015, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner for alleged misconduct while serving as Special Judge (SC/ST). The charges related to divergent orders passed on bail applications under Section 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 449/2013 (VYAPAM matter). Specifically, the petitioner granted anticipatory bail to certain accused on 29.01.2014, 30.01.2014, and 31.01.2014, while rejecting bail to others on 14.02.2014, 20.02.2014, and 28.02.2014. The divergence in orders was cited as the basis of misconduct.
The charge sheet contained four articles of charge. The first three articles concerned alleged inconsistency in granting and rejecting bail in the same crime number despite similar allegations and circumstances. The third article specifically alleged that the petitioner had acted with ulterior or corrupt motives. The fourth article again pointed to divergence in bail orders without alleging any corrupt intent.
The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 11.03.2015, explaining that the offences involved were triable by the Magistrate and punishable with a maximum of three years, except for Section 420 IPC which permitted a seven-year term. He contended that graver offences like Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 201 IPC were added later in the investigation, thereby justifying the rejection of bail applications filed after such additions.
The departmental enquiry conducted thereafter examined only one witness, Jor Singh Bhadoria, the Investigating Officer. According to the petitioner, no documents were exhibited, and no adverse statement was made by the sole witness. The enquiry report nonetheless concluded that the charges were proven. The petitioner submitted objections to the report.
On 19.10.2015, Respondent No.2 issued the order terminating the petitioner's services, allegedly without considering his reply. An appeal under Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was filed and subsequently dismissed on 01.08.2016 without providing reasons.
The petitioner argued that none of the bail orders passed by him had been reversed by the High Court or challenged by the State. No complaints were filed by parties whose bail applications were rejected. He also contended that the departmental enquiry assumed the character of an appellate review of judicial orders rather than a disciplinary proceeding.
The petitioner cited various judgments in support of his claim, including Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2019) 10 SCC 640, where the Supreme Court held that wrong judicial orders alone should not invite disciplinary action absent evidence of extraneous considerations. Other judgments cited included K.C. Rajwani v. State of M.P. (2022 SCC Online MP 1550), Abhay Jain v. High Court of Rajasthan (2022) 13 SCC 1, and Roop Singh Alawa v. State of M.P., W.P. No.18931/2017.
The Court observed that "none of those applicants/accused, who have suffered an adverse order... had ever preferred a complaint alleging motives against the Petitioner for having denied them relief due to non-fulfilment of oblique considerations." It was further recorded that the "sole witness examined... has not uttered a single allegation against the Petitioner and has merely stated what he has done in the investigation."
The Court noted that "the entire enquiry process has examined the orders passed by the Petitioner threadbare as though the enquiry officer was sitting as an appellate Court over the orders passed by the Petitioner." It also recorded that the State did not seek cancellation of bail either before the trial court or the High Court.
Critically evaluating the administrative conduct, the Court stated: "The dismal relationship between the Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the District Judiciary is one between a feudal lord and serf." The bench further noted the "subjugation and enslavement of the psyche of the Judges of the District Judiciary" and attributed such psychological fear to decisions like the termination of the petitioner.
The Court articulated the broader systemic concern: "A District Judiciary which is compelled to work perpetually under this fear cannot dispense justice and instead shall dispense with justice."
In regard to the specific charges, the Court stated that "allegation of corruption or extraneous motive finds its place only in Charge No.3. Charge No.1, 2 and 4 merely state what the Petitioner has done without alluding any imputation of dishonesty to him." It added: "Not a single person who had suffered an adverse order from the Petitioner has ever made a complaint... stating that such applicants could not meet the extraneous demands of the Petitioner."
The Court concluded: "If the Respondent No.2 on the administrative side is going to question the exercise of discretion... where the question of corruption is merely an imputation by the enquiry officer, unsustainable by any material on record, the injustice done would be such that cannot be reversed later on."
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned termination order. It held: "Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed." The Court acknowledged the petitioner had already superannuated and directed: "However, on account of gross injustice suffered by him, this Court, besides restoring his pensionary benefits, also directs that he should be given back wages from the date on which he was terminated till the date he would have otherwise superannuated with 7% interest."
It ordered compliance within 90 days from the upload of the order on the Respondent No.2’s website, failing which the petitioner could initiate contempt proceedings. The Court further directed: "this Court deems it essential to impose a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) which shall be paid to the Petitioner, to be shared between the Respondents."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri Vipin Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Shweta Yadav, Deputy Advocate General; Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Kaustubh Chaturvedi, Advocate
Case Title: Jagat Mohan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: W.P. No.15070 of 2016
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
