'Error Of Judgment, Not Major Misconduct': MP High Court Grants Relief To Judge Dismissed From Service After Granting Bail To Murder Accused

The Court opined that the dismissal of the judge was based on an error of judgement and not major misconduct. Thus, the Court termed the punishment of dismissal from service as 'shockingly disproportionate'. 

The District and Sessions Judge was dismissed from service for allowing bail application of a murder accused after rejection of his four successive bail applications by the High Court.

The division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain observed, “…this case is a case of error of judgement, and very thinly crossing the line of not maintaining judicial discipline, though the same seems to be under a mistaken belief that the petitioner was still having liberty to consider the repeat bail application in terms of liberty granted while deciding the second bail application by the High Court, which was never expressly withdrawn, but was impliedly withdrawn, by allowing subsequent bail applications filed before it to be rejected/withdrawn as not pressed…It is certainly not a case of any major misconduct and not a case of wilful behavior by the Trial Judge passing orders stubbornly disregarding the order of the High Court. Though the order was erroneous but here was a case where confusions were being created by contradictory orders passed by the High Court in subsequent bail applications. Therefore, in our opinion it is a case of erroneous order and only because the petitioner subsequently did not cancel the bail, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed any major misconduct.”

A petition was filed challenging the order whereby the petitioner who was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge was dismissed from service by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the ground that in a pending Sessions Trial, the petitioner with corrupt motive or for some extraneous consideration, had allowed the bail application of a murder accused after rejection of his four successive bail applications by the High Court.

As per the petitioner, the accused whose bail application was allowed by the petitioner had earlier filed first bail application before the High Court which was dismissed as not pressed. In the second bail application, the High Court held that the trial court shall decide the trial within a period of four months and if the trial is not concluded within the said period then the accused would be at liberty to move fresh application before the trial court. In the third bail application, bail was not granted. Lastly, in the fourth bail application, the High Court had granted six months' time to conclude the trial. Even though High Court granted six months to conclude the trial, the accused was granted bail by the petitioner. Thus, it was alleged to be against judicial discipline and propriety and that the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty expected of a judicial officer.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer in the enquiry report held that no corrupt conduct nor any extraneous consideration or mal-intention had been proved in the Departmental Enquiry in the matter of grant of bail to the accused person. The report only said that the act of the petitioner amounted to judicial indiscipline because he failed to maintain Judicial discipline as he granted bail to an accused whose bail applications have been rejected by the High Court.

The counsel argued that it was a case of oversight and inadvertence as the petitioner did not take into account the true effect of subsequent orders of the High Court while allowing the bail application of the accused person. It was further argued that there was nothing on record to substantiate that the subsequent orders of the High Court in bail applications were sent by the High Court to the file of the Sessions Judge so that the petitioner can be said to have failed to adhere to judicial discipline by granting bail to the accused person.

On the contrary, the counsel for respondents contended that the petitioner had failed to maintain judicial discipline by allowing bail application of accused in sessions trial though the High Court had repeatedly rejected the bail applications. In spite of that, the Sessions Judge allowed the bail application which amounted to judicial indiscipline and judicial impropriety not expected of a senior judicial officer posted in Higher Judicial Services.

It was further argued that it was brought on record in the enquiry report that the subsequent bail rejection orders and bail withdrawal orders of the High Court were placed before the file of Sessions Court by the complainant.

After perusal of the record, the Court noted that the petitioner had knowledge of subsequent withdrawal/dismissal of repeat bail application of the accused from the High Court. However, the High Court while dealing with second bail application had granted liberty to the trial court to decide the bail application of the accused on merits if trial is not concluded within four months. The Court further noted that the petitioner had allowed the repeat bail application by exercising the said liberty and had mentioned the same in the bail order.

“The repeat bail applications before the High Court had been though dismissed or withdrawn but once a liberty was given over to the Trial Judge at some point of time, then the act of the petitioner in allowing the subsequent bail application of the accused person by exercising the liberty granted by the High Court can only be said to be an error of judgment by the Trial Judge. More so when the Inquiry Officer himself has noted that no ingredients of any corrupt practice or extraneous consideration have been found proved in the enquiry.”, the Court observed.

Thus, the Court opined that it was a case of error of judgment which thinly crosses the line of judicial indiscipline under a mistaken belief or impression. The Court held that this cannot be said to be a case of major misconduct and wilful behavior by the Trial Judge passing orders blatantly disregarding the order of the High Court. Although the order was erroneous, it was a case where confusions were created by contradictory orders passed by the High Court in subsequent bail applications.

“However, it is not such case which warrants dismissal of the judicial officer from service that too when judicial officer had put in 28 years of service and was due to retire within next two to three years or so, and had an otherwise unblemished career…it has been held that no ingredients of extraneous consideration or of any corrupt practice could be established during the course of enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal in the present case shocks the conscience of this court because the punishment is shockingly disproportionate”, the Court said.

Noting that petitioner is above 65 years of age at present and would have superannuated from service in the year 2018, the Court replaced the punishment of dismissal with punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect.

The Court directed 50% of backwages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation and full pensionary benefits to be paid to the petitioner.

The petition was hence, allowed.

Case Title: Roop Singh Alawa Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another, Writ Petition No. 18931 Of 2017

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Prahlad Choudhary with Adv. Aditya Narayan Sharma

Counsel for State: Adv. Dr. S.S. Chouhan

Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Senior Advocate Anoop Nair with Adv. Mihir Linawat