The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the removal of a civil judge for poor performance, not misconduct. Allegations like making lawyers do sit-ups were not the reason for his dismissal.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
JABALPUR: The Madhya Pradesh High Court supported the removal of a civil judge, Kaustubh Khera, who had been accused of making lawyers and police officers do sit-ups and touch their ears in court.
These actions were said to be part of contempt of court proceedings. But the Court made it clear that Khera was removed not because of the complaints, but because he did not perform well during his probation.
This decision came on May 7, by a Division Bench including Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain.
The Court said that the High Court’s Full Court never punished Khera. It only decided that he had not used his probation time properly, so he was discharged from service.
The judges clearly said,
“Thus, it is clear that once no foundation of misconduct is alleged in the discharge order, it is a discharge simpliciter and cannot be lightly interfered because it is settled that it is only the superior authorities of the department that have to take work from the officer concerned and they are the best people to judge whether the officer concerned should be continued in service or not having regard to his performance, conduct and overall suitability for the job.”
Khera had joined as a judicial officer in 2019. He was removed in 2023 by the Madhya Pradesh government, based on a recommendation from the High Court’s Administrative Committee and Full Court.
He challenged this removal and claimed that the decision was a “punitive order” made without any proper inquiry. He said it was based on seven complaints, including misbehaving with lawyers, starting contempt of court actions against advocates and police, leaving his station without permission, and punishing his peon by sentencing him to two months jail.
One serious allegation was that he made Bar members and police officers touch their ears and do sit-ups in the courtroom as an apology during contempt proceedings. He was also accused of leaving the judge’s seat and running after court staff.
In his defense, Khera said that he started contempt cases only to send them to the High Court, but later closed them after taking apologies. He also said he gave directions to his staff just to improve how the court was working.
The High Court’s lawyer said that no punishment order was passed against Khera. So, no inquiry was needed. However, they admitted that the negative material in his record was only used to check whether he was fit for the job.
The Court then stated that if the authority feels the officer is not suitable based on what they observed during probation, that does not mean he was punished.
The Bench said,
“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 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.”
About the claim that an internal inquiry was done into Khera’s behavior, the Court accepted that:
“It is also true that a discrete enquiry was conducted by a Senior Judicial Officer of the District namely Shri Nadeem Khan, District Judge, who found some substance in the complaints and recommended to take the matter further. However, it is not in dispute that the matter was not taken further and no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner nor any punitive action was taken against the petitioner.”
The Court also said that Khera cannot argue that the complaints and inquiry should have been hidden from the High Court’s committees.
It said,
“In absence of any material to indicate that the said complaints or the allegations contained in the said complaints have solely been the reason, and thus, became the foundation of the decision taken by the authorities, it cannot be inferred that the order is punitive.”
The Court finally said that under Rule 11(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, the High Court has full power to recommend the removal of a judge on probation if found unfit for the job.
“Therefore, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and stands dismissed,”
-the Court ruled.
Kaustubh Khera appeared in person in this case. Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari and Advocate Divya Pal represented the High Court.
CASE TITLE:
Kaustubh Khera v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Madhya Pradesh High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
