The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a judicial officer cannot be terminated merely for passing divergent bail orders unless there is material showing that such orders were motivated by extraneous considerations. The Court quashed the dismissal of former District Judge Jagat Mohan Chaturvedi, calling the termination “gross injustice” and awarding him full back wages with 7% interest and ₹5,00,000 in costs.
The bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal allowed Chaturvedi’s writ petition, stating:
“In view of the specific facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injustice suffered by the Petitioner, the hardships he and his family were subjected to, the humiliation in society that he had to face, only on account of passing judicial orders, without an iota of material coming on record to even establish corruption even on the anvil of preponderance of probability, this Court deems it essential to impose a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) which shall be paid to the Petitioner, to be shared between the Respondents.”
Background
Chaturvedi, who served the District Judiciary for nearly 28 years, was dismissed by the State Government on October 19, 2015, following a Full Court decision of the High Court. The dismissal related to anticipatory bail orders he passed in multiple Vyapam-related cases in early 2014. His appeal was rejected on August 1, 2016.
The charge sheet dated 24.02.2015 contained four articles of charge. Only one (Charge No.3) attributed extraneous motive. The others alleged inconsistency in bail decisions but not any corruption or misconduct. As the Court noted:
“Thus, out of the four charges, the specific imputation of corrupt and extraneous consideration finds a place only in Charge No.3. In the other charges, rather than a charge, it is a statement of fact of divergent opinions being held by the Petitioner…”
Court’s Analysis
The Court found no supporting material for the charge of corruption:
“It is also relevant to mention here that not a single person who had suffered an adverse order from the Petitioner has ever made a complaint to the High Court stating that his application for grant of bail which was identical to others who were granted bail by the same Judge, were dismissed because such applicants could not meet the extraneous demands of the Petitioner.”
“The sole witness who was examined in this case in the enquiry was Investigating Officer in this case who has stated that the cases in which the Petitioner had granted bail where the once in which incriminating material was yet to be unearthed against those applicants.”
Referring to precedents such as Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, K.C. Rajwani v. State of M.P., and Abhay Jain v. High Court of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that erroneous orders, without more, cannot justify dismissal:
“…where a Judge of the District Judiciary passes orders, which are against settled principles of law/ legal norms, but there is no allegation of any extraneous considerations leading to the passing of such orders, then the appropriate action which the High Court could take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on service record of the Judge concerned.”
Institutional Critique
The Court made unusually sharp remarks about the systemic culture affecting the District Judiciary:
“The dismal relationship between the Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the District Judiciary is one between a feudal lord and serf.”
“The subjugation and enslavement of the psyche of the Judges of the District Judiciary is complete and irreversible, so it seems.”
“The extent of the rule of law existing in any state is reflected by the independence and fearlessness of its District Judiciary, the first tier of the justice administration system, and not the High Court…”
Decision and Relief
The High Court set aside the dismissal, holding that:
“The Petitioner has superannuated in the meanwhile from service. However, on account of gross injustice suffered by him, this Court, besides restoring his pensionary benefits, also directs that he should be given back wages from the date on which he was terminated till the date he would have otherwise superannuated with 7% interest.”
The Court gave 90 days for compliance. It also granted liberty to the petitioner to file a contempt petition if the order is not implemented.
