Introduction:

In the case titled Mahendra Singh Taram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 14113 of 2017, the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a former Civil Judge Class II, challenging his removal from judicial service. The petitioner, Mahendra Singh Taram, was appointed through the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and was serving as a Civil Judge when a surprise inspection was conducted by the District Judge (Vigilance) at Tehsil Niwas, District Mandla. The inspection revealed severe procedural lapses: in three criminal cases, he had delivered final verdicts without writing judgments, and in two other cases, he had adjourned matters without drawing order sheets. A departmental inquiry followed, in which all five charges against him were found to be proved. The disciplinary authority, based on a Full Court resolution, punished removal from service. The petitioner’s appeal and representation were subsequently dismissed, prompting him to approach the High Court.

Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the punishment was arbitrary and disproportionate, claiming that in similar circumstances, a fellow Civil Judge had received a much milder punishment—namely, withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. He also invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, asserting that the punishment was violative of his right to equality and equal opportunity in public employment. His counsel argued that the inquiry findings were not properly appreciated and that the alleged errors were bona fide, stemming from workload pressures and personal difficulties. Conversely, the respondent authorities, represented by the Principal Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, maintained that the misconduct was grave and that each disciplinary proceeding must be judged on its merit. They emphasised that parity of punishment could only be considered if both officers were subjected to a common inquiry, which was not the case here.

Judgement:

The Court, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, upheld the dismissal, holding that all five charges constituted grave misconduct. It observed that delivering judgments without writing them and adjourning cases without recording order sheets were acts that compromised the integrity and sanctity of the judicial process. Such acts betrayed a lack of devotion and integrity, which are core expectations from a judicial officer. The Court clarified that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and should not override the findings of a properly conducted departmental inquiry unless there is a clear case of procedural impropriety or perversity. On the issue of parity, the Court dismissed the argument, stating that negative parity cannot be claimed in dissimilar disciplinary proceedings. The bench concluded that the petitioner had been given due opportunity to present his defence and that the impugned orders did not suffer from arbitrariness or violation of constitutional guarantees. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed, and the removal from service was upheld.