4 min readBhopalJul 8, 2026 05:40 AM IST
First published on: Jul 8, 2026 at 05:40 AM IST
Observing that public confidence in the judiciary “constitutes one of the foundational pillars of the constitutional system”, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash departmental proceedings initiated against a Civil Judge accused of preparing an acquittal judgment in a criminal case that had not been legally concluded.
The petitioner, who was serving as a Civil Judge, Senior Division, in Indore, had sought quashing of the disciplinary proceedings on the grounds that they had been initiated while a criminal prosecution arising from the same set of facts was still pending. He also argued that the chargesheet had been issued after an unexplained delay of nearly five years, causing serious prejudice to his defence.
A Division Bench of Justices Anand Pathak and B P Sharma dismissed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of the chargesheet dated December 19, 2025, issued by the High Court.
The disciplinary proceedings stem from allegations relating to a 2019 criminal trial in which the civil judge was accused of giving undue benefit to an IAS officer, whose IAS award was held up due to the pendency of a criminal case. According to the High Court’s administrative inquiry, an acquittal judgment dated October 6, 2020, was allegedly prepared and brought into existence even though the criminal case had not been legally disposed of. The allegations further suggest that the act was carried out as part of a conspiracy to confer an undue advantage upon the accused.
Following a vigilance inquiry and examination of the material collected, the disciplinary authority placed the petitioner under suspension before issuing the impugned chargesheet, initiating a regular departmental inquiry.
‘Allegations of gravest nature’
Rejecting the challenge based on delay, the Bench held that the nature of the allegations justified a detailed vigilance examination before disciplinary proceedings could be commenced.
“The allegations levelled against the petitioner concern preparation of an acquittal judgment of an accused person despite the criminal case not having been lawfully concluded. Such allegations are of the gravest nature and concern the integrity of the judicial institution itself,” the court observed.
It further noted that cases involving members of the judicial service necessarily require “detailed vigilance scrutiny and careful examination” before disciplinary action is initiated.
The judgment also said, “The petitioner has not demonstrated any specific prejudice resulting from the alleged delay. A mere assertion that the defence has been prejudiced cannot be accepted in the absence of any material particulars.”
On the principal argument that departmental proceedings should await the outcome of the criminal case, the court reaffirmed the settled legal position that disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials operate in distinct fields and serve different purposes.
‘Public confidence…’
Emphasising the special responsibilities attached to judicial office, the Bench observed that maintaining public confidence in the justice delivery system assumes paramount importance.
“Public confidence in the judiciary constitutes one of the foundational pillars of the constitutional system. The disciplinary authority is under an obligation to ascertain whether the conduct of a judicial officer conforms to the standards of integrity and propriety expected from the office held by him,” the court observed.
The court added that such an inquiry “cannot be indefinitely postponed awaiting conclusion of criminal proceedings, the duration of which remains uncertain”.
Addressing the contention that the charges were vague, the Division Bench held that the chargesheet contained specific articles of charge supported by statements of imputations, witnesses and documentary evidence.
“The facts of the present case disclose specific articles of charge supported by statement of imputations, witnesses and documentary material. The charges cannot be described as vague or indefinite. Whether they are ultimately proved or disproved is a matter to be adjudicated during the disciplinary inquiry,” the Bench observed.
A Division Bench of Justices Anand Pathak and B P Sharma dismissed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of the chargesheet dated December 19, 2025, issued by the High Court. 
Share
