New Delhi: The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a civil judge when it was found to be acquitted in criminal trials without writing any decision.
In an unusual case, Mahendra Singh Tararam, a former civil judge class II, who was appointed by Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC), challenged An order of September 2014 was passed by the state’s legal and legislative department, which was removed from the post of a civil judge.
After a surprising inspection by the Jabalpur Zone District Judge (Inspection and Vigilance), after a recommendation by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the order found that Taram had acquitted individuals without writing a decision in December 2012. “The allegations acquitted the accused of serious misconduct that they acquitted criminal cases without writing a decision, which is not clearly seriously. Jain ruled.
Show full article
All five allegations against Taram were related to criminal cases, stating that they were given a proper opportunity to present their defense. After considering their response, the disciplinary authority and the full court decided to remove them from service.
The court said, “The scope of judicial review is very limited in such a case,” saying that no “illegal or deformity” was found in the orders passed by the MP government.
What was the case of Taram before HC
In July 2003, Taram was selected as a Class II trainee -level civil judge from Narsinghpur district of Madhya Pradesh. Since then, he has been posted in several districts, including Chhatarpur and Mandla.
However, in December 2012, posted in Tehsil Neus in Mandla district, a surprising inspection by District Judge (Vigilance) allegedly accused serious laps.
It said that he acquitted individuals and heard criminal cases without passing a written decision or order in at least three criminal cases. The final decision was given in one without a written decision, while he postponed the case in two other criminal cases without passing any formal written orders. Following these allegations, a show-causal notice was issued to the judge and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him.
In its April 24 judgment, the court mentioned that the investigating officer found all five allegations against Taram Siddha.
In the officer’s 21 March 2014 report, he blamed Taram for serious misconduct under Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
What does MP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules say
1965 Rule 3 of Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct), in his report, all government servants quoted by the investigating officer, complete integrity, dedication to duty and “do nothing that is unbalanced of a government servant”.
“Every government servant holding a supervisory post will take all possible steps to ensure integrity and dedication to the duties of all government servants under their control and rights,” it says.
In addition, a government servant will act “in his best decision”, performing his official duties or using his powers. The only exception to this is when the government servant is working under instructions from his best. However, in such cases, also, the rule states that whenever practical, these instructions should be obtained in writing.
The only exception to this rule is when the government servant is working under the direction of his official superior. Even in such cases, the rule states that wherever it is practical, the government employee should get these directions in writing.
The court also referred to Rule 10 of Rule 1966 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), which outlines various punishments for misconduct by government servants, when “good and adequate reasons” exist.
The minor punishment includes the sensor, preventing promotion, salary or increase, while the major punishments include compulsory retirement to dismissal or removal from service.
What happened after the report Taram was found guilty
The investigating officer found Taram guilty of the allegations against him, the civil judge filed an answer seeking to approve all the allegations.
However, in July 2014, the disciplinary authority decided to impose a fine of removal from service, which was formally ordered in September that year. After the authority rejected his appeal, Taram contacted the High Court.
Taram challenged his 2014 dismissal order “arbitrary” and a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution and 16 (right to equality in public employment), arguing that the evidence recorded during departmental investigation was not considered in “appropriate perspectives”.
He also said that he was entitled to equality with the judicial authorities appointed in the same way, citing the case of Civil Judge Class II posted in the Orkha, Tikamgarh district, which was fined less-which was about two increments with cumulative effects-for the intervals.
In contrast, Tararam argued that in his case, a large punishment for removal from service was imposed.
Did the court ruin
However, the court dismissed Tararam’s comparison with Siddharth Sharma’s case, given that in the case of Sharma, the investigating officer found “gross negligence” in his judicial work, no “corrupt motive” was established. Therefore, he received a low fine of two with two increments.
In contrast, Tararam’s conduct included more severe judicial lapses, which justified the removal.
After taking into account MP Civil Services Rules of 1966 and 1965, the court, Karnataka vs. The Narasimha Prasad case changed the Supreme Court’s 2023 verdict in the High Court, where the apex court prepared the Karnataka High Court to receive a judicial officer, which was completely ready for a decision.
The apex court ruled in the case in 2023, “A judicial officer could not pronounce the closing part of his verdict in an open court, which was without the entire text of the decision being prepared/decided.”
In the Landmark’s judgment, the apex court also stated that when the challenge on the fine order imposed on a judicial officer is considered, after the disciplinary proceedings, after a complete court proposal, the court has to go only by the installed parameters in such cases.
What are installed parameters
In its 2023 judgment, the court stated that the courts are obliged to consider the following installed parameters, fixing similar cases. These include such views as if the allegations are proved, if the investigations of the investigating officer are appropriate and potential, and whether the laws of the process and the principles of natural justice are followed.
Another idea to be taken into consideration in such cases is to find out whether the punishment is completely incompatible or not, especially in the light of the officer’s gravity of misconduct, their previous records of service and any other extinct circumstances.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also read: The MP government raises the quotient of the state’s happiness. ‘Anandagram’ is its chosen means