MP High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Civil Judge Over "Reckless" Judicial Orders

A judicial officer's independence does not amount to immunity from disciplinary action, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held, dismissing a petition filed by a former Civil Judge sacked from service over two judicial orders passed nearly a decade ago.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma refused to interfere with the dismissal of a former Civil Judge Class-I posted at Beohari in Shahdol district, upholding the State Government's 2015 order removing him from the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service after a departmental enquiry.

Petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 226, challenging the order dated March 13, 2015, dismissing him under Rule 10(9) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, after the Full Court's administrative side accepted findings of misconduct while discharging judicial functions.

The disciplinary proceedings rested on two charges. The first concerned an order dated October 4, 2012, in a forest offence case, where the petitioner directed release of a tractor and trolley seized for allegedly transporting sand illegally, even though confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act had already been initiated and an earlier plea for release of the same vehicle had already been rejected by the same court, a rejection upheld right up to the High Court.

The second charge arose from a criminal case under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, where, after convicting the accused on his own plea of guilt, the petitioner issued notice to a third person alleged to be involved, despite there being no FIR, chargesheet, or cognizance order against him, and later closed proceedings without the person ever appearing before court.

An Enquiry Officer had found both charges proved, concluding that the petitioner "consciously exercised judicial powers in patent disregard of settled legal principles with mala fide intention." The Administrative Committee and the Full Court concurred, recommending dismissal.

Before the High Court, Senior Advocate Manoj Sharma, assisted by advocate Quazi Fakhruddin, argued for the petitioner that the entire disciplinary action was founded on nothing more than a difference of legal opinion over judicial orders, and that no witness had alleged corruption, extraneous influence, or illegal gratification against him.

He relied on Supreme Court judgments protecting judicial officers from punishment for bona fide errors, including Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan through Registrar General & Another, Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad & Another, and the recent Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh verdict, arguing that even if an error existed, dismissal was disproportionate.

Appearing for the State, Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi, along with counsel for the High Court, advocate Shreyash Pandit, countered that the disciplinary authority had never treated every erroneous order as misconduct, but had found that petitioner's conduct fell within the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, where recklessness or conscious disregard of statutory provisions justifies disciplinary action despite the order being judicial in nature.

The Bench agreed with the State. "The disciplinary authority is not concerned merely with the correctness of the judicial order but with the manner in which judicial power has been exercised," the Court observed, adding that the judgments cited by petitioner did not confer "absolute immunity from disciplinary jurisdiction" on judicial officers.

On the merits, the Court found that petitioner, "despite complete knowledge" that confiscation proceedings and repeated rejections already covered the same vehicle, entertained a fresh plea and granted identical relief. On the second charge, it held that issuing notice to a person against whom there was no complaint, FIR, or cognizance order, and then closing proceedings without his appearance, "evoke[d] mala fides" and raised "integrity as well as intellect issues."

Rejecting the arguments of procedural violation and disproportionate punishment, the Court held that the enquiry had been conducted fairly, with adequate opportunity granted to the petitioner, and that the punishment could not reasonably be called "shockingly disproportionate."

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Court affirming the dismissal order with no costs imposed on either side.

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

Date of Order: July 3, 2026

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