New Delhi | The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that quashed the termination of a judicial officer who allegedly created a nuisance and urinated in front of the berth of a woman co-passenger onboard a train in 2018.
Terming the civil judge's conduct as "disgusting", a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that it was a "shocking" case and he should have been dismissed.
It issued a notice to the judicial officer and the Madhya Pradesh government seeking their responses on the petition filed by the high court's administrative side against a May last year order of the high court's division bench that had quashed the termination order of September 2019 and had directed that the judicial officer be reinstated within 15 days.
"You should have been dismissed," the apex court bench said.
"Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. In the meantime, effect and operation of the impugned judgement shall remain stayed," the top court said while posting the matter for hearing after six weeks.
The judicial officer was appointed to the post of Civil Judge, class-II, in March 2011, and it was alleged that in June 2018, when he was travelling in a train, he misbehaved, harassed the co-passengers in a drunken state and undertook certain obscene activities.
It was also alleged that in the state of intoxication, he urinated in front of the berth of a woman co-passenger and due to the nuisance, passengers had to pull the chain, and the train was delayed.
He was arrested and, since the offence was bailable, was released on bail.
A show-cause notice was issued to him in June 2018 and the judicial officer submitted a detailed reply to it, denying the allegations levelled against him.
He was also prosecuted under Section 145 of the Railway Act, 1989, for the same set of allegations and after a detailed trial, the special railway magistrate, Jabalpur, acquitted him in March 2019.
The judicial officer was issued another show cause notice in September 2018, along with articles of charge and a preliminary enquiry report.
He filed a reply and denied all the charges levelled against him.
In its order, the high court had noted that the inquiry officer had found the judicial officer guilty of the charges levelled against him.
Later, the administrative committee proposed the punishment of removal from service and the same was approved by the high court's full court in September 2019.
In compliance with the recommendation of the full court, his services were terminated by an order dated September 28, 2019.
He then approached the high court with a petition seeking the quashing of the September 28, 2019, order and the recommendation of the administrative committee as well as the decision of the full court.
While dealing with his plea, the high court's division bench had noted that the special railway magistrate had acquitted him and recorded that there was no medical evidence on record that confirmed alcohol consumption.
"In the present case, the acquittal of the petitioner 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," the high court had said.
It said that key prosecution witnesses, including the alleged victim, had not supported the prosecution's case and categorically failed to identify the judicial officer.
"This acquittal, coupled with the lack of any fresh or independent material in the departmental enquiry, casts serious doubt on the sustainability of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner (judicial officer) in disciplinary proceedings," the high court had said.
It had also noted that on the basis of media reports, a show cause notice was issued to the judicial officer and a departmental enquiry was initiated.
"The termination order, in light of the above facts and settled legal principles, suffers from arbitrariness and disproportionate exercise of power," the high court had said.
While quashing the termination order, it had directed that the authority may, if deemed appropriate, impose a minor penalty, strictly limited to the proven charges of not seeking prior approval for travel and not informing the arrest in a criminal case to the district judge concerned.
