The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur set aside the dismissal of Jagat Mohan Chaturvedi, a former Special Judge (SC/ST), who was terminated in 2015 for granting anticipatory bail to some accused persons in the Vyapam scam. The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal found the termination legally untenable, unsupported by any material evidence, and emblematic of a deeper, systemic malaise within the judiciary.
The petitioner, a judicial officer with an unblemished service record of nearly three decades, was removed from service following a departmental inquiry that faulted him for passing bail orders in favour of some accused while denying relief to others in the same case. While one of the four charges made a vague reference to “extraneous considerations,” no complainant, no direct evidence, and no adverse judicial finding supported this inference. The Court noted that none of his bail orders had been challenged or reversed, and that the sole witness examined in the inquiry a police officer made no allegation of impropriety.
Criticising the disciplinary process, the Court held that the High Court administration had impermissibly acted as an appellate authority over judicial decisions, rather than respecting the sanctity of the trial court’s discretionary powers. The Court found that the judicial officer was penalised for mere divergence in judicial opinion, absent any demonstrable misconduct. The Court observed that such treatment created a chilling effect within the District Judiciary, where judicial officers, fearing reprisal, may err on the side of denial in bail and conviction decisions.
The Bench drew upon key Supreme Court precedents including Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2019) 10 SCC 640 and Abhay Jain v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2022) 13 SCC 1, to reiterate that disciplinary action against judicial officers can only be justified when there is credible material indicating mala fide intent or misconduct. Judicial errors or interpretive discretion, by themselves, are not grounds for termination.
The Court sharply criticised the High Court’s treatment of subordinate judges, describing it as “feudal” and “colonial” in tone and structure. The Court noted the psychological subjugation of the District Judiciary, likening the hierarchical relationship to that of “a feudal lord and a serf”, and called for urgent institutional reform to restore independence and dignity to the first tier of the judiciary. The Court stated that (at para 17 of the judgment)
The relationship between District Judiciary and the High Court in the State is not based on mutual respect for each other but one where a sense of fear and inferiority is consciously instilled by one on the subconscious of the other.
Granting relief, the Court ordered:
Reinstatement of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, who had since superannuated.
Full back wages with 7% interest from the date of dismissal to retirement.
₹5 lakh in compensation to be paid jointly by the respondents for the harm, humiliation, and hardship suffered.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Shri Vipin Yadav
Respondent/ State: Ms. Shweta Yadav, Dy. Advocate General
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Kaustubh Chaturvedi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.