Premium

‘Disgusting, grossest grave misconduct’: SC stays order reinstating judicial officer who urinated inside train coach

The MP High Court had earlier said the order for the termination of the Class II civil judge suffered from 'arbitrariness and disproportionate exercise of power'.

3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jan 12, 2026 06:34 PM IST

While intoxicated, the officer allegedly displayed his identity card and urinated on the berth of a nearby passenger. (Wikimedia Commons)

While intoxicated, the officer allegedly displayed his identity card and urinated on the berth of a nearby passenger. (Credit: Unsplash)

Calling his conduct “disgusting”, the Supreme Court Monday stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order directing reinstatement of a judicial officer, who was removed from service over alleged misconduct, including urinating inside the coach in an inebriated state, aboard a train in 2018.

Issuing notice on the appeal filed by the Registrar General challenging the order given by the HC on May 6, 2025, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the officer’s action was “grossest grave misconduct”.

“He urinated in the compartment. There was a lady present,” exclaimed Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The core allegation against the officer was that he, a Class-II Civil Judge, while returning from Bhopal to Jabalpur on June 16, 2018, consumed liquor and, in a state of intoxication, created a nuisance, misbehaved with and abused co-passengers as well as the conductor/TTE, thereby obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his official duties.
Due to the nuisance caused by the officer in Coach A-1 of Indore-Jabalpur Overnight Express, passengers were compelled to pull the emergency chain, resulting in a delay of the train, it was alleged. It was also alleged that the officer displayed his identity card and, while intoxicated, urinated on the berth of a nearby passenger. Based on complaints received from passengers, the petitioner was de-boarded from the train at Pipariya, and a case was registered against him under Section 145 of the Railways Act. Though arrested, he was released on bail immediately as the offence was bailable.

He also faced a departmental enquiry since he had not taken permission from his controlling officer or the district judge for the travel besides concealing the fact about the arrest from his superiors.

In the criminal case, the Special Railway Magistrate Jabalpur, by order dated March 23, 2019, acquitted him as the allegations against him could not be proved since key witnesses, including the TTE and the woman who complained about him urinating, refused to support the prosecution case. The Magistrate also recorded that the medical examination did not reveal the presence of alcohol in the officer’s system.

The departmental inquiry, however, found him guilty and the Administrative Committee proposed the punishment of removal from service. This was approved by the full court of MP HC on September 24, 2019.

Story continues below this ad

The officer challenged this before the HC, where a Division Bench headed by the then Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said that the officer’s acquittal by the Special Railway Magistrate “was not merely on technical grounds or for want of prosecution, rather, it was a result of a thorough appreciation of the evidence on record.”

Quashing his termination from service, the HC, in its May 6 order, had said, “the termination order… suffers from arbitrariness and disproportionate exercise of power.”

The HC also said that the officer not intimating his seniors about his travel was only a procedural lapse and the fact that he failed to inform the district judge regarding his arrest “appears to be more in the nature of an omission rather than a wilful suppression…”.