In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the removal of Nirbhay Singh Suliya, a former Additional District Judge, for corruption and misconduct in handling bail applications. The court dismissed Suliya’s writ petition challenging his removal, emphasizing the need for maintaining high standards of judicial conduct.
Background of the Case
Nirbhay Singh Suliya, who began his judicial career as a Civil Judge, Class II, in 1987, and was later promoted to Additional District & Sessions Judge in 2011, faced allegations of corruption. A complaint was lodged by Jaipal Mehta on August 12, 2011, accusing Suliya of engaging in corrupt activities, particularly in deciding bail applications under the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Key Legal Issues
1. Fairness of the Departmental Inquiry: Whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with procedural rules and principles of natural justice.
2. Evidence of Corruption: Whether there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of corruption and misconduct.
3. Scope of Judicial Review: The extent to which the High Court can interfere in disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers.
Court’s Decision
The division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, dismissed the petition (Writ Petition No. 8623 of 2016), thereby upholding the removal order dated September 2, 2014, and the rejection of Suliya’s appeal on March 17, 2016.
Important Observations
1. On the Conduct of the Inquiry:
– The court noted that the inquiry was conducted following proper procedures, including issuing show-cause notices and allowing Suliya to present his defense. “Proper procedure was adopted during enquiry; show cause notice was issued, the Petitioner was granted opportunity to file reply to the show cause, the article of charges and all other relevant documents were supplied along with show cause notice, enquiry was conducted in the presence of the delinquent and he was granted opportunity to cross examine the departmental witness and he examined the defence witness” (Order, p. 12).
2. On Evidence of Corruption:
– The court found that even though there was no direct evidence of corrupt or improper motives, the pattern of Suliya’s bail orders indicated misconduct. “Even though there may not be direct evidence to show corrupt or improper motive but on bare perusal of the bail orders, it can be seen that the judicial officer has acted in a manner which cannot be approved to any manner whatsoever” (Order, p. 14).
3. On Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings:
– The court emphasized its limited role in reviewing disciplinary actions, stating, “High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to sit as a Court of Appeal to re-appreciate or reweigh the entire evidence and subject matter of judicial review is only limited to the decision making process” (Order, p. 12).
4. On the Standards Expected of Judicial Officers:
– Citing the Supreme Court, the court reiterated that judicial officers must maintain the highest standards of conduct. “Judicial service is not a service in the sense of ’employment’. The judges are not employees. As members of judiciary, they exercise sovereign judicial powers of the State, absolute uprightness of behaviors and conduct is required to be maintained” (Order, p. 15).
Also Read
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Nirbhay Singh Suliya, represented by Advocate Dhruv Verma
– Respondents: State of Madhya Pradesh, represented by Deputy Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh, and Respondent No. 2, represented by Advocate B.N. Mishra
