Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Dismissal of Civil Judge for Grave Procedural Lapses
In a strong reaffirmation of judicial accountability, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by former Civil Judge Mahendra Singh Taram, who challenged his removal from service for serious procedural irregularities in criminal cases. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain held that Taram’s conduct amounted to grave misconduct and upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss him.
Background
Taram, who joined the judiciary as a Civil Judge Class-II on 29 July 2003, was posted in Niwas, District Mandla, when a surprise inspection on 4 December 2012 by the District Judge (Inspection and Vigilance), Jabalpur Zone, exposed troubling irregularities. He had acquitted accused persons in several criminal cases without writing any judgments and had failed to maintain order sheets in many instances.
Departmental Proceedings
A show cause notice followed, and Taram, in his response, admitted the lapses, citing workload stress and personal issues. He also offered an unconditional apology. However, the inquiry revealed serious violations:
In Cr. Case No. 87/2006, acquittals were recorded merely through an order-sheet dated 26.11.2012, with no supporting judgment.
In Cr. Case No. 471/06, although the accused were acquitted on 30.11.2012, no judgment existed.
Similarly, in Cr. Case No. 216/06, the acquittal was passed without drafting a judgment.
The Enquiry Officer concluded that Taram’s conduct reflected a clear departure from judicial discipline and amounted to gross misconduct. The Full Court endorsed the findings and imposed the penalty of removal from service under Rule 10(viii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.
Arguments and Court’s Findings
Taram’s counsel argued that the punishment was excessive and pointed to another officer, Siddharth Sharma, who received only a minor penalty for similar misconduct. However, the Court distinguished the cases, noting that Sharma's case involved civil matters, not criminal acquittals without judgment.
The respondents emphasized that Taram’s charges were far more severe, involving criminal trials where legal procedure is paramount.
Relying on State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Mangayarkarasi and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that unless a punishment is shockingly disproportionate, courts must defer to the disciplinary authority's discretion.
Final Verdict
The Bench concluded that Taram had “failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty,” and that his actions were "unbecoming of a judicial officer." Finding no merit in the plea, the Court dismissed the petition.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s zero-tolerance approach towards procedural negligence—especially when it affects the course of justice in criminal matters.
