Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of petitioner, a judicial officer serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the M.P. Higher Judicial Services, for granting bail to the accused whose prior bail applications was rejected or dismissed by the High Court, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain,* J., held that although the petitioner committed an error in judicial discretion by granting bail contrary to High Court orders, but it did not amount to grave misconduct. The Court deemed punishment of dismissal as “shockingly disproportionate” and reduced the same to “withholding of two increments without cumulative effect.”
In the instant matter, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the State Government through its Department of Law and Legislative Affairs via order dated 19-10-2015 based on a recommendation from the Full Court of the High Court, itself acting on the recommendation of the concerned Administrative Committee. His appeal against the dismissal was rejected on 02-03-2017.
The petitioner contended that he had joined the judiciary in 1987 as Civil Judge Class-II and had an otherwise unblemished record until the incident which led to his dismissal on the charge that he had granted bail on 09-11-2012 to an accused, charged under Sections 302, 120-B, and 147 IPC, despite the fact that four bail applications by the same accused had previously been dismissed or withdrawn before the High Court. The petitioner stated that that he was dismissed because granting bail to the accused after consistent rejection by the High Court was deemed as a demonstration of judicial impropriety and amounted to a failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty.
The petitioner emphasised that neither the prosecution nor the complainant pointed out the rejection/withdrawal of later bail applications and that the error was one of inadvertence. It was contended that the Inquiry Officer found no corrupt or extraneous motive and held the act to be one of judicial indiscipline rather than misconduct.
However, the respondents argued that granting bail in violation of repeated High Court orders amounted to blatant judicial impropriety. It was asserted that subsequent High Court orders rejecting bail applications had been brought to the petitioner’s notice. It was emphasized that the High Court had previously cancelled the bail granted by the petitioner, noting misuse of power and lack of judicial discipline.
The Court noted that liberty had been granted by the High Court, in its order dated 09-12-2011, to the trial court to consider a fresh bail application and that liberty was not expressly revoked in subsequent orders, though subsequent bail applications had been rejected or withdrawn. The Court further noted that the Inquiry Officer had recorded that no corrupt motive or extraneous consideration was proved.
The Court held that “the act of the petitioner in allowing the subsequent bail application… can only be said to be an error of judgment.” The Court cited Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2019) 10 SCC 640 and Abhay Jain v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2022) 13 SCC 1, to distinguish between judicial error and misconduct and asserted that an erroneous judicial order does not necessarily amount to misconduct warranting dismissal, especially in the absence of corrupt motives.
The Court held that the act of the petitioner was an error of judgment that slightly crossed into judicial indiscipline, but not grave misconduct. The Court further held that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate in view of his otherwise unblemished 28-year career, proximity to retirement, and the absence of any corrupt intent.
“The Trial Judge exercising liberty cannot be said to have conducted a grave misconduct in allowing the bail application… the punishment of dismissal in the present case shocks the conscience of this court because the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.”
The Court invoked its power to mold relief as per Delhi Police v. Sat Narayan Kaushik, (2016) 6 SCC 303 and Union of India v. Ram Karan, (2022) 1 SCC 373 and set aside the penalty of dismissal and substituted the punishment with “withholding of two increments without cumulative effect.”
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of back wages from the date of termination till date of superannuation and he shall receive full pensionary benefits as per law. The Court directed the respondents to carry out necessary calculations and release payment within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order.
[Roop Singh Alawa v. State of M.P., Writ Petition No. 18931 of 2017, Decided on 01-05-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Vivek Jain
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Prahlad Choudhary, Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Dr. S.S. Chouhan, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondents/State
Shri Anoop Nair, Senior Advocate with Shri Mihir Linawat, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
