Judge Accused Of Creating Acquittal Judgment During Pendency Of Trial Gets No Relief From MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with departmental proceedings initiated against a judicial officer accused of facilitating the creation of an acquittal judgment in a criminal case that had allegedly not been legally concluded, holding that the pendency of a criminal prosecution does not automatically bar disciplinary action.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma dismissed a writ petition filed by a member of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service, who challenged a charge-sheet issued under Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The petitioner was serving as V Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore, when allegations surfaced in connection with Criminal Trial No. 1621 of 2019, State vs Santosh Verma. According to the allegations examined during vigilance scrutiny, an acquittal judgment dated October 6, 2020 was allegedly prepared and brought into existence despite the criminal case still being pending. It was alleged that the act was intended to confer an undue benefit upon the accused, Santosh Verma, who could not receive an IAS award due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings.

Following scrutiny on the administrative side, the High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings, placed the officer under suspension and issued a charge-sheet on December 19, 2025. The charge-sheet contained articles of charge, statements of imputations, and lists of witnesses and documents. An Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were also appointed.

Advocate Narendra Chouhan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by an unexplained delay. He submitted that while the alleged incident related to 2020, the charge-sheet was issued only in December 2025. According to him, the delay had prejudiced the petitioner's ability to effectively defend himself.

The petitioner further contended that the criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings arose from the same set of facts and involved common witnesses and documentary evidence. It was argued that continuation of the inquiry would prejudice the defence in the criminal case and compel disclosure of the petitioner's stand before the trial concluded.

Opposing the petition, Government Advocate Kanak Gaharwar for the State and Advocate Khalid Noor Fakhruddin for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh supported the disciplinary action. They submitted that the allegations were extremely serious and struck at the very foundation of public confidence in the justice delivery system. They also argued that judicial review against a charge-sheet is limited and that there is no legal bar on simultaneous continuation of criminal and departmental proceedings.

After hearing the parties, the Bench held that interference at the stage of a charge-sheet is permissible only in exceptional cases. Rejecting the plea based on delay, the Court observed that matters involving judicial officers require detailed vigilance scrutiny before disciplinary action is initiated.

The Bench noted that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice arising from the delay. It observed, "Such allegations are of the gravest nature and concern the integrity of the judicial institution itself." The Court further held that "a mere assertion that the defence has been prejudiced cannot be accepted in the absence of any material particulars."

Addressing the argument regarding parallel proceedings, the Court clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. does not create an absolute rule requiring departmental proceedings to be stayed whenever a criminal case is pending. The Bench observed that while a stay may be appropriate in certain situations, disciplinary proceedings cannot be indefinitely delayed.

Emphasising the higher standards expected from members of the judiciary, the Court observed, "Public confidence in the judiciary constitutes one of the foundational pillars of the constitutional system." It further held that such inquiries "cannot be indefinitely postponed awaiting conclusion of criminal proceedings, the duration of which remains uncertain."

Finding that the charge-sheet contained specific allegations supported by documentary material and witness lists, the Court held that the proceedings could not be termed arbitrary or vague. Dismissing the petition, the Bench permitted the disciplinary inquiry to continue in accordance with law while clarifying that its observations would not influence the inquiry on merits.

Case Title: VSR v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: June 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma