MP High Court upholds dismissal of judge accused of chasing behind court staff, making lawyers and cops do sit-ups

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the removal of a civil judge who was accused of making lawyers and police officers touch their ears and do sit-ups as an apology in contempt of court proceedings [Kaustubh Khera v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others]..In a judgment delivered passed on May 7, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain found that the probationer Kaustubh Khera was not discharged due to the complaints but his unsatisfactory performance.It observed that the resolution passed by the Full Court for Khera’s discharge duly establishes that the Full Court did not pass any punitive order against the petitioner and it simply decided to discharge the petitioner from service by holding that he did not utilize his probation period successfully and satisfactorily.“Thus, it is clear that once no foundation of misconduct is alleged in the discharge order, it is a discharge simpliciter and cannot be lightly interfered because it is settled that it is only the superior authorities of the department that have to take work from the officer concerned and they are the best people to judge whether the officer concerned should be continued in service or not having regard to his performance, conduct and overall suitability for the job,” the Court ruled..Khera, who was appointed a judicial officer in 2019, was discharged from service by the Madhya Pradesh government last year following a recommendation of the High Court Administrative Committee and the Full Court.Challenging the dismissal, Khera submitted that a “punitive order” was passed against him without any inquiry on the basis of seven complaints relating to alleged misbehavior with advocates, initiating contempt of court proceedings against lawyers and police personnel, leaving headquarters without permission, fining his own peon and sentencing him to two month imprisonment over alleged misconduct, and misbehavior with court staff.One of the allegations was that Khera would institute contempt of court proceedings against Bar members and police and have them touch their ears and do sit-ups for apology. It was also alleged that he would run after court staff by leaving his dias and chase after them. .Khera in his defence submitted that he had initiated the contempt of court proceedings only to refer them to the High Court but closed them himself after accepting the apologies of the parties. He also said that he had issued directions to his staff for better functioning of the Court.In response, the counsel representing the High Court (administrative side) submitted that no stigmatic order was passed against Khera while discharging him and thus an enquiry was not necessary into the allegations of misconduct.However, it was admitted that the adverse material against him could have only constituted material to form an opinion on whether he would shape into a suitable judicial officer or not. .In the judgment, the Division Bench said that if the competent authority has some material before it on which it reaches to a conclusion that the officer concerned would not shape into suitable officer, then it cannot be said that a punitive action has been taken against him.“Taking a punitive action for misconduct is one thing and arriving at a satisfaction that whether the officer would shape into a suitable officer or not, on the basis of performance during probation period is altogether different thing. There is a whole lot of difference between the two and in the present case, it is duly established from the aforesaid orders and resolutions that the petitioner has not at all been punished nor the discharge order, from any angle, is punitive in nature,” it added..On the submission that a discreet enquiry was conducted into the allegations of misbehavior and verbal abuse of staff, the Court said,"It is also true that a discrete enquiry was conducted by a Senior Judicial Officer of the District namely Shri Nadeem Khan, District Judge, who found some substance in the complaints and recommended to take the matter further. However, it is not in dispute that the matter was not taken further and no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner nor any punitive action was taken against the petitioner.".The Court further said Khera cannot argue that the pendency of the complainants and investigation into them should have been suppressed from the Administrative Committee or the Full Court.“In absence of any material to indicate that the said complaints or the allegations contained in the said complaints have solely been the reason, and thus, became the foundation of the decision taken by the authorities, it cannot be inferred that the order is punitive,” the Court ruled.In conclusion, the Court said that Rule 11(c) of Rules of MP Judicial Service Rules, 1994, specifically vest power in the High Court to recommend termination of services of judicial officers on probation on account of unsuitability for the post.“Therefore, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and stands dismissed,” the Court ordered..Petitioner Kaustubh Khera appeared in person. Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari with advocate Divya Pal represented the High Court.[Read Judgment]