The Supreme Court strongly criticised the alleged conduct of a Madhya Pradesh civil judge accused of exposing himself and urinating inside a train compartment during a journey in the presence of a woman, describing the episode as deeply disturbing and unbecoming of a judicial officer. A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to interfere with the judge’s removal from service.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the administrative side of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and its Principal Registrar (Vigilance) against a May 2025 judgment that had set aside the civil judge’s termination and diluted the penalty imposed in disciplinary proceedings.
The case stems from a 2018 incident during a train journey from Indore to Jabalpur. It is alleged that the judicial officer travelled without permission, consumed alcohol, abused co-passengers and railway staff, obstructed the Travelling Ticket Examiner, misused his judicial identity card, exposed himself, and urinated in the compartment, including on the seat of a woman co-passenger.
A criminal case under the Railways Act was registered, but the officer was acquitted after key witnesses turned hostile. Parallel departmental proceedings, however, culminated in findings of grave misconduct. The Enquiry Officer held all charges proved, which was approved by the Administrative Committee and the Full Court, leading to the Governor terminating the officer’s services in September 2019.
In May 2025, the High Court set aside the termination, relying primarily on the criminal acquittal and holding that removal could not be sustained in light of the acquittal. It further suggested imposition of only a minor penalty for certain ancillary charges.
Challenging this, the High Court’s administration contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in importing criminal standards of proof into disciplinary proceedings. It argued that acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile cannot nullify departmental findings, which operate on the preponderance of probabilities. Reliance was placed on contemporaneous records, including the TTE’s detailed complaint and corroborative witness testimonies, which, according to the petitioners, conclusively established misconduct.
The petition further asserted that the High Court exceeded the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions for those of the Enquiry Officer, Administrative Committee, and Full Court. Emphasising the higher standards expected of judicial officers, it was argued that such conduct strikes at the core of judicial integrity and renders continuance in service institutionally untenable.
After hearing submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice and sought the State’s response in the matter.
The petition has been filed through Advocate Divyakant Lahoti.