MP High Court Upholds Removal Of Additional District Judge Accused Of Taking Money To Grant Bail

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the removal of an Additional District Judge in connection with allegations of corruption.

The decision, rendered by the bench of the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Vinay Saraf, affirms that there is no need to judicially review the findings of departmental enquiry, when due process followed and no perversity found.

The allegations against the ADJ surfaced on August 12, 2011, when one Jaipal Mehta lodged a complaint accusing him of deciding bail applications under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act in exchange for money.

The High Court had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the ADJ where he was found guilty. Subsequently, the Administrative Committee (HJS) recommended his removal from service. The Full Court endorsed this recommendation, leading to the issuance of the removal order by the State's Law and Legislative Department on September 2, 2014.

The ADJ challenged the removal order through an appeal under Rule 23 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, which was rejected on March 17, 2016. Subsequently, he filed the present writ petition, raising multiple grounds of challenge.

Petitioner's counsel, Shri Dhruv Verma, argued that the complaint was baseless as the complainant, Jaipal Mehta, was not examined during the inquiry, and no substantive evidence supported the allegations of corruption. Verma contended that the bail orders in question, even if erroneous, should not be construed as misconduct. He emphasized that the judicial orders might have been based on legal interpretations and cited precedents that support judicial discretion in granting bail under specific circumstances.

The respondents, representing the State, defended the removal order, arguing that the inquiry followed due process, adhering to principles of natural justice. They asserted that the delinquent's actions, specifically the inconsistent application of legal standards in granting bail, indicated a corrupt motive. The departmental inquiry was thorough, and the findings were based on substantial evidence, including 19 bail orders demonstrating double standards in Petitioner's judicial conduct.

The respondents cited judgments such as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011), All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India, (1993) emphasizing the high standards expected from judicial officers and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. They argued that the inquiry and subsequent removal decision were justified, given the gravity of the charges and the evidence presented.

At the outset, the High Court perused the bail orders passed by the ADJ and said the ADJ had adopted "double standards" since in some of the cases wherein the bail was granted in a liberal manner without considering the relevant provisions whereas in most of the cases, same approach was not adopted for other applicants.

It also meticulously reviewed the procedural aspects and substantive findings of the departmental inquiry and noted that principles of natural justice were adhered to.

“...a reasonable finding arrived at by the Inquiring Authority in the present case based on material available on record can neither be interfered with by this Court nor can it termed as perverse or unreasonable to such an extent that interference can be made by this Court,” Court said.

“No violation of principles of natural justice or error is found in the procedure followed in the enquiry in the present case. In the absence of any procedural illegality, irregularity in the conduct of departmental enqiury, in the considered opinion of this Court, no interference is warranted”

The court emphasized that judicial officers must maintain the highest integrity and that deviations from legal standards, especially those suggesting corruption, warrant strict disciplinary action. The court found no procedural impropriety or violation of statutory provisions in the inquiry process and upheld the removal order.

Case title: Nirbhay Singh Suliya Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 175

Citation: WRIT PETITION No. 8623 of 2016

Click Here To Read/Download Order