The Supreme Court has set aside the removal of a Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, holding that disciplinary action cannot be sustained solely on the basis of judicial orders granting bail, absent any material indicating corruption, mala fides, or extraneous considerations.
A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and J.B. Pardiwala allowed the appeal filed by a former Additional District and Sessions Judge, who was removed from service after 27 years of unblemished service. The disciplinary action was founded exclusively on four bail orders passed under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, where Section 59-A (containing “twin conditions” for bail) was not expressly referred to, while bail had been rejected in several other cases.
The Court noted that the original complaint was vague and primarily targeted the judge’s stenographer, alleging corruption, but neither the complainant nor the stenographer was examined during the departmental inquiry. Crucially, the prosecution witness examined by the department did not support the allegations, and even the Public Prosecutor who appeared in all the bail matters testified that the bail orders were passed on merits and were legally justified. No challenge was ever mounted by the State against those bail orders.
The Bench held that mere omission to expressly cite a statutory provision, or the possibility of an alternative view being taken, cannot by itself justify disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer. Emphasising the distinction between an erroneous judicial decision and misconduct, the Court reiterated that disciplinary action is warranted only where there is cogent material to show recklessness, mala fides, undue favour, or corrupt motive.
Observing that a “fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary,” the Court cautioned High Courts against acting on ill-conceived or motivated complaints, warning that such actions could seriously undermine judicial independence at the grassroots level. The inquiry findings were held to be perverse, as no reasonable person could have concluded misconduct on the material available.
Accordingly, the orders of removal, rejection of appeal, and the High Court’s judgment upholding the punishment were quashed. The appellant was deemed to have continued in service till the age of superannuation and was granted full back wages with all consequential benefits, along with interest at 6%, to be released within eight weeks.
