The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an Indore-based judicial officer who sought to halt disciplinary proceedings against him for allegedly drafting an acquittal order in a criminal case before the trial had officially concluded.
A division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B P Sharma ruled that maintaining public trust in the judicial system is paramount, describing the allegations against the civil judge as highly severe since they directly impact the institutional integrity of the courts.
Origins Of The Case
The administrative case stems from a 2019 criminal trial where the petitioner, then serving as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Indore, allegedly drafted an acquittal judgment dated October 6, 2020, despite the case remaining open. According to the High Court’s administrative inquiry, this act was part of a conspiracy to provide an unauthorized benefit to an IAS officer whose career advancements were blocked due to the pending criminal prosecution.
Following a vigilance investigation, the disciplinary authority suspended the judge and issued a formal chargesheet on December 19, 2025, initiating a regular departmental inquiry. The judge subsequently challenged this chargesheet under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Court Rejects Delay And Vagueness Claims
In his petition, the judicial officer argued that the chargesheet should be dismissed because it was issued after an unexplained delay of nearly five years, which he claimed prejudiced his ability to defend himself. He also contended that the charges leveled against him were vague.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court observed that allegations concerning the premature drafting of an acquittal order require extensive and careful vigilance scrutiny before formal disciplinary steps can be taken. The bench added that the petitioner failed to provide concrete evidence showing how the passage of time had actually harmed his defense.
Additionally, the justices found that the chargesheet was highly specific, containing distinct articles of charge, witness testimonies, and supporting documentary evidence. The bench clarified that whether these accusations are ultimately true remains a matter to be decided during the departmental inquiry itself.
Parallel Proceedings Can Proceed
The judge also argued that the departmental proceedings should be suspended until a separate, pending criminal case based on the same set of facts is resolved.
Dismissing this point, the bench reiterated that administrative disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions serve entirely different goals and operate in separate arenas. The court emphasized that an inquiry into a judicial officer’s conduct and integrity cannot be put on hold indefinitely while awaiting the outcome of a criminal trial, which may take an unpredictable amount of time to reach a conclusion.
