Madhya Pradesh High Court slams its administrative side for terminating trial judge without evidence

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ordered its administrative side and the State government to pay a compensation of ₹5 lakh to a judicial officer, who was terminated from service only on account of his judicial orders though there was no evidence of corruption [Jagat Mohan Chaturvedi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others]

In an order passed on July 14, the Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal restored Chaturvedi’s pensionary benefits and also directed that he be given back wages from the date he was terminated in 2015 with 7 percent interest.

He has already retired from service; his plea against termination remained pending since 2016.

“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,” the Court ordered.

Chaturvedi, a judge since 1987, was terminated in 2015 after he was accused and found guilty of misconduct in respect of grant of bail in Vyapam scam and other cases. He was mainly accused of holding of divergent opinion in applications for grant of bail, where he allowed some and dismissed some.

Considering the record, the Division Bench in the verdict dated July 14, noted that not a single person who had suffered an adverse order had ever made a complaint that his application for bail, which was identical to others who were granted bail by the same judge, were dismissed because they could not meet the extraneous demands of the petitioner.

The Court further noted that the allegation of corruption was mentioned only in one of the four charges. However, the Court found that the same was merely an imputation.

“If the Respondent No.2 [High Court] on the administrative side is going to question the exercise of discretion under Section 438 and 439 (or the corresponding Sections of the BNSS) by the Judges of the District Judiciary in favour of the applicant, where the question of corruption is merely an imputation by the enquiry officer, unsustainable by any material on record, the injustice done would be such that cannot be reversed later on,” the bench said.

The Court added that Chaturvedi’s service was terminated merely two years before he was to retire after a blemish-less career of almost 28 years. It further noted that none of the bail orders for which he was terminated, were reversed by the High Court.

“If the Court on the administrative side felt that the orders were passed because of extraneous consideration, these orders could have been taken suo moto on the judicial side also and set aside, but such a course of action was never adopted by this Court,” it said.

“It is only because of his blemish less reputation that the Petitioner at the relevant point of time was holding the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but yet, the applications for bail in these matters were listed before him, considering his reputation and integrity,” the Court added.

Thus, the Court set aside the order terminating Chaturvedi.

Advocate Vipin Yadav represented the petitioner.

Deputy Advocate General Shweta Yadav appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari with advocate Kaustubh Chaturvedi appeared for the High Court.

[Read Judgment]