The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the dismissal of Roop Singh Alawa, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge, holding that his act of granting bail to a murder accused despite High Court rejections was an “error of judgment” and not “major misconduct.” The Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain found the penalty of dismissal to be “shockingly disproportionate” and substituted it with the punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect.
Background:
Roop Singh Alawa, appointed as Civil Judge Class-II in 1987, was promoted to Additional District and Sessions Judge in 2004. He was dismissed from service by the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 19 October 2015, based on the recommendation of the Full Court of the High Court, following a departmental inquiry into his order dated 9 November 2012, granting bail to an accused in Sessions Trial No. 248/2010, involving charges under Sections 302, 120-B, and 147 of the IPC.
The appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order was also rejected on 2 March 2017.
Allegations and Findings:
The charge against the petitioner was that he had granted bail to one Hakim, an accused in a murder trial, even though four earlier bail applications had been rejected or withdrawn by the High Court. The act was alleged to amount to judicial impropriety and indiscipline.
However, the Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 17 July 2014, found:
“No corrupt conduct nor any extraneous consideration or mal-intention has been proved in the Departmental Enquiry.”
It was further noted that the petitioner had granted bail while acting under the liberty granted by the High Court’s earlier order dated 9 December 2011 in M.Cr.C. No. 7617/2011, which permitted the trial court to entertain a fresh bail application if the trial was not concluded within four months.
State’s Submissions:
The State, represented by Dr. S.S. Chouhan, Government Advocate, argued that the petitioner’s act of granting bail despite repeated High Court rejections amounted to judicial indiscipline. It was submitted that the bail order had been cancelled by the High Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1866/2013, which observed that such conduct was a misuse of judicial discretion and directed that the matter be brought to the notice of the District Judge and Portfolio Judge.
High Court’s Analysis:
The Division Bench examined the sequence of bail applications and High Court orders. While subsequent applications had been rejected or dismissed as not pressed, the Bench held that the liberty granted in the 9 December 2011 order had not been expressly withdrawn.
Quoting its own analysis, the Court observed:
“The act of the petitioner in allowing the subsequent bail application… can only be said to be an error of judgment by the Trial Judge.”
It further held:
“It is certainly not a case of any major misconduct and not a case of wilful behavior by the Trial Judge… the punishment of dismissal in the present case shocks the conscience of this Court.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2019) 10 SCC 640; Abhay Jain v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2022) 13 SCC 1; and K.C. Rajwani v. State of M.P., 2022 SCC OnLine MP 1550 to reinforce that an erroneous judicial order, in absence of mala fide intent or corruption, cannot be treated as misconduct warranting dismissal.
Final Relief:
- The dismissal order was set aside.
- The punishment was modified to withholding of two increments without cumulative effect.
- The petitioner was awarded 50% back wages from the date of termination till his superannuation in 2018.
- He shall receive full pensionary benefits as per law.
- The State was directed to complete calculation and disbursement within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
