- Supreme Court expresses shock over alleged misconduct by MP civil judge during train journey
- Bench questions Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to dilute disciplinary punishment
- Judge was earlier terminated in 2019 following departmental inquiry
- HC in 2025 set aside termination, citing acquittal in criminal case
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 12th Jan: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong displeasure over the alleged misconduct of a civil judge from Madhya Pradesh during a train journey, terming the incident “disgusting” and questioning the High Court’s decision to dilute disciplinary action taken against him.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said it was “shocked” by the nature of allegations, including that the judicial officer urinated in a train compartment in the presence of a woman co-passenger.
“We fail to understand how the High Court has acted… Disgusting conduct of a judicial officer. You have managed to turn all the witnesses hostile. This is a shocking case. You urinated in the compartment. There was a lady,” the bench remarked while hearing an appeal filed by the administrative side of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The incident allegedly occurred in 2018, when the judicial officer was travelling from Indore to Jabalpur by train without prior permission. It is alleged that he consumed alcohol, abused co-passengers and railway staff, obstructed a Travelling Ticket Examiner from performing his duties, misused his judicial identity card to threaten passengers, exposed himself and urinated on the seat of a female co-passenger.
Following a complaint by the TTE, a criminal case was registered under the Railways Act. Though the officer was later acquitted after key prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the High Court initiated parallel departmental proceedings.
The Enquiry Officer found all charges to be proved and recommended removal from service. The Administrative Committee and Full Court approved the recommendation, and the Governor ordered the officer’s termination in September 2019.
However, in May 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court partly allowed the judge’s plea, set aside his termination and suggested that only a minor penalty be imposed, citing his acquittal in the criminal case.
Challenging this, the High Court’s administrative side has approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the acquittal was not based on a finding of innocence but due to hostile witnesses, and that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Administrative Committee and Full Court.
The Supreme Court has now sought the state’s response in the matter and will continue hearing the case.
