New Delhi: Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Jabalpur bench has upheld a civil judge’s dismissal after he was found to have acquitted accused persons in criminal trials without writing any judgments.
In an unusual case, Mahendra Singh Taram, a former civil judge Class II, appointed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC), challenged a September 2014 order passed by the state’s legal and legislative department removing him from the post of a civil judge.
The order followed a recommendation by the Madhya Pradesh High Court after a surprise inspection by a Jabalpur zone district judge (inspection and vigilance) found that Taram had acquitted persons without writing a judgment in December 2012. “The charges are of grave misconduct that he acquitted the accused in criminal trials without writing a judgment, which are obviously of serious nature. The same cannot be condoned,” a two-judge bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain ruled.
Underlining that all five charges against Taram were related to criminal cases, the bench noted that he was given a fair opportunity to present his defence. After considering his response, the Disciplinary Authority and the Full Court decided to remove him from service.
“The scope of judicial review is very limited in such a case,” the court noted, while adding that it did not find any “illegality or perversity” in the orders passed by the MP government.
Also Read: Madhya Pradesh DGP’s order directing cops to salute MP, MLAs draws censure from both Congress & BJP
What was Taram’s case before HC
Taram was selected as a Class II trainee level civil judge from Madhya Pradesh’s Narsinghpur district in July 2003. Since then, he has been posted in multiple districts, including Chhatarpur and Mandla.
However, in December 2012, while posted in Mandla district’s Tehsil Niwas, a surprise inspection by the district judge (vigilance) alleged serious lapses.
It said that he acquitted persons and heard criminal cases without passing written judgments or orders in at least three criminal cases. The final verdict was delivered without a written judgment in one while he adjourned the matter in the other two criminal cases without passing any formal written orders. Days after these allegations, a show-cause notice was issued to the judge and a departmental enquiry initiated against him.
In its 24 April ruling, the court noted that the enquiry officer found all five charges against Taram proven.
In the officer’s 21 March 2014 report, he held Taram guilty of grave misconduct under Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
What the MP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules say
Rule 3 of the 1965 Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, cited by the enquiry officer in his report, states that all government servants shall maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and “do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant”.
“Every government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all government servants for the time being under his control and authority,” it adds.
Further, a government servant, while performing his official duties or exercising his powers, shall act “in his best judgment”. The only exception to this is when the government servant is acting under instructions from his superior. However, in such cases, too, the rule says that whenever practical, these instructions should be obtained in writing.
The only exception to this rule is when the government servant is acting under the directions of his official superior. Even in such cases, the rule says that wherever practical, the government employee should obtain these directions in writing.
The court also referred to Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966, which outlines various penalties for misconduct by government servants, when “good and sufficient reasons” exist.
Minor penalties include censure, withholding of promotions, pay or increments, while major penalties range from compulsory retirement to dismissal or removal from service.
What happened after report found Taram guilty
After the enquiry officer found Taram guilty of the charges levelled against him, the civil judge filed a reply requesting to be cleared of all charges.
However, in July 2014, the Disciplinary Authority decided to impose the penalty of removal from service, which was formally ordered in September that year. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the authority, Taram approached the high court.
Taram challenged his 2014 dismissal order as “arbitrary” and a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (right to equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution, arguing that the evidence recorded during the departmental enquiry had not been considered in “proper perspective”.
He also contended that he was entitled to parity with similarly-placed judicial officers, citing the case of Siddharth Sharma, a civil judge Class II posted in Orchha, Tikamgarh district, who had received a lesser penalty—withholding of two increments with cumulative effect—for comparable lapses.
In contrast, Taram argued that in his case, a major penalty of removal from service was imposed.
What court ruled
However, the court rejected Taram’s comparison with Siddharth Sharma’s case, noting that while the enquiry officer in Sharma’s case found “gross negligence” in his judicial work, no “corrupt motive” had been established. He, therefore, received a lesser penalty of two withheld increments.
In contrast, Taram’s conduct involved more serious judicial lapses, justifying the removal.
After taking into consideration the 1966 and 1965 MP Civil Services Rules, the court turned to the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka vs M. Narasimha Prasad case, where the top court pulled up the Karnataka High Court for acquitting a judicial officer who was accused of pronouncing the operative portion of a judgment in open court without the whole text of the judgment being ready.
“A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated,” the top court had ruled in that case in 2023.
In the landmark decision, the top court had also said that when considering a challenge to a penalty order imposed upon a judicial officer, after disciplinary proceedings followed by a Full Court resolution, the court is supposed to go by only the established parameters in such cases.
What are the established parameters
In its 2023 ruling, the court laid down that courts are obliged to consider the following established parameters while deciding similar cases. These include considerations like whether the charges stood proved, if the findings of the inquiry officer are reasonable and probable, and whether the rules of procedure and principles of natural justice are followed.
Another consideration to be kept in mind in such cases is ascertaining if the penalty is completely disproportionate or not, especially in the light of the gravity of the officer’s misconduct, his past record of service and any other extenuating circumstances.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: MP govt looks at upping the state’s happiness quotient. ‘Anandgrams’ are its chosen instrument