Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Petition of Civil Judge
In a significant decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to interfere in the disciplinary actions initiated against a civil judge accused of prematurely preparing a judgment of acquittal for a government official, even before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in the case. The case involved a civil judge who allegedly drafted a judgment in favor of an administrative officer, Santosh Verma, thereby affecting his pending criminal trial. The case citation is Vijendra Singh Rawat v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Allegations of Judicial Misconduct
The court, comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice BP Sharma, expressed grave concerns over the allegations that the civil judge had prepared an acquittal judgment without legal closure of the criminal case. “Such allegations are of the gravest nature and concern the integrity of the judicial institution itself,” noted the bench in its order dated June 24.
Proceedings Against the Judge
The case against the civil judge, who served in Indore, was brought to the administrative notice of the High Court. Following this, the disciplinary authority suspended the judge and issued a charge-sheet on December 19, 2025, under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. An Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed to manage the departmental inquiry.
Judge’s Petition and Court’s Ruling
The judge contested the disciplinary proceedings, citing the significant delay between the alleged incident in 2020 and the charge-sheet issuance in 2025. He argued that this delay compromised the integrity of the proceedings and that the ongoing criminal prosecution should halt the disciplinary inquiry. However, the State and High Court countered these arguments, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity for a comprehensive disciplinary investigation.
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to show any actual prejudice due to the delay in issuing the charge-sheet. It clarified that there is no legal barrier to conducting criminal and departmental proceedings concurrently. The court asserted that the disciplinary inquiry should not be indefinitely delayed due to the pending criminal case.
More Read
Court’s Decision
Ultimately, the court dismissed the judge’s petition and emphasized that its observations should not affect the disciplinary authority’s independent judgment in the proceedings. The court underscored the importance of examining whether the judge’s actions met the expected standards of integrity and propriety for judicial officers.
Advocate Narendra Chouhan represented the petitioner, while Government Advocate Kanak Gaharwar appeared for the State. Advocate Khalid Noor Fakhruddin represented other respondents.
