The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the removal of civil judge Kaustubh Khera, who has been the subject of several complaints, including that he would allegedly compel lawyers and police officers to touch their ears and perform sit-ups in open court as an apology in contempt proceedings. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain dismissed Khera’s plea against his removal, holding that the discharge was based not on disciplinary action, but on unsatisfactory performance during probation. Khera was appointed a judicial officer in 2019 and was discharged from service on September 5, 2024, by the Madhya Pradesh government, following the recommendation of the High Court Administrative Committee dated August 8, 2024, and ratification by the Full Court on August 20, 2024. In his petition, Khera contended that his removal was punitive and carried out without conducting an inquiry. He cited seven complaints against him, which included misbehaviour with advocates, initiating and then dropping contempt proceedings against lawyers and police personnel, demanding apologies through ear-holding and sit-ups, similar treatment of police personnel, misbehavior with court staff including women, verbal abuse, threats of physical assault, and chasing staff members off their seats during court hours. The complaints were filed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, the Bar Association, and the Superintendent of Police. One complaint noted that Khera fined his court peon Rs 50 and sentenced him to two months in jail without proper authority. Khera argued that he had initiated contempt proceedings only to refer them to the High Court, and closed them himself after receiving apologies. He claimed his directives to staff were aimed at improving court functioning. The Court, however, held that the discharge was not punitive. In a May 7 judgment, the court observed, “The impugned termination order simpliciter mentions that the petitioner was unable to carry out the probation period satisfactorily and successfully. No other reason is assigned. Therefore, the order cannot be termed to be punitive by any stretch of imagination. It is simply a case of discharge/termination simpliciter upon adjudging suitability of the officer concerned for confirmation and being found unsuitable.” "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 an 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," the court observed.
