The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash a disciplinary inquiry against a civil judge accused of preparing an acquittal judgment before the trial concluded, holding that such allegations strike at the integrity of the judicial institution and warrant a full departmental inquiry.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not bar departmental action against a judicial officer.
The Court refused to quash a disciplinary charge-sheet issued to a member of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service, observing that allegations affecting the integrity of the judiciary require timely disciplinary scrutiny and cannot be kept pending indefinitely until the conclusion of a criminal trial.
A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B. P. Sharma dismissed the writ petition filed by Vijendra Singh Rawat, who had challenged the legality of a departmental charge-sheet issued by the High Court on its administrative side under Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
The Court remarked,
“The allegations levelled against the petitioner concern the 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 petitioner, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service, was posted as V Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore, when allegations surfaced regarding Criminal Trial No. 1621 of 2019, State v. Santosh Verma.
According to the allegations, an acquittal judgment dated October 6, 2020, was allegedly prepared and brought into existence even though the criminal trial had not been legally concluded. It was alleged that the act was committed as part of a conspiracy to confer an undue advantage upon the accused, Santosh Verma, who was unable to receive an IAS award because the criminal case against him was still pending.
The alleged conduct was treated as grave misconduct, abuse of judicial office and a failure to maintain the integrity expected from a judicial officer.
Following vigilance scrutiny by the High Court, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental charge-sheet dated December 19, 2025, was issued. The disciplinary authority also appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer to conduct the departmental inquiry.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from an unexplained delay because the alleged incident related to 2020 while the charge-sheet was issued only in December 2025. It was also contended that the criminal prosecution and departmental inquiry were based on the same facts, witnesses and documents, and therefore the departmental proceedings should remain stayed until the criminal trial concluded.
The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. in support of his submissions.
The respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations involved preparation of a forged judgment and abuse of judicial office, which directly affected public confidence in the administration of justice. They argued that judicial review at the stage of a charge-sheet is extremely limited and that there is no legal prohibition against simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings because both serve different purposes and are governed by different standards of proof.
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench rejected the petitioner’s challenge. On the issue of delay, the Court observed that allegations involving judicial officers necessarily require detailed vigilance scrutiny before disciplinary action is initiated. It held that the petitioner had failed to establish any actual prejudice resulting from the delay.
The Court observed,
“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.”
The Bench further examined the petitioner’s reliance on Capt. M. Paul Anthony and clarified that the Supreme Court had not laid down an absolute rule requiring departmental proceedings to be stayed whenever a criminal case is pending.
The Court observed,
“The Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that there is no bar to simultaneous continuation of criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings.”
Clarifying the legal position, the Bench further stated,
“Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) does not lay down an inflexible rule mandating stay of departmental proceedings in every case where a criminal prosecution is pending.”
The High Court emphasized that maintaining public confidence in the judiciary is a constitutional necessity. It observed that disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers cannot remain suspended indefinitely merely because criminal proceedings are pending, particularly when the duration of such trials remains uncertain.
The Court observed,
“Public confidence in the judiciary constitutes one of the foundational pillars of the constitutional system.”
The Bench further held that the charge-sheet contained specific articles of charge supported by statements of imputations, documentary evidence and witness lists. Whether those charges are ultimately proved is a matter to be decided during the disciplinary inquiry and not in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Reiterating the settled principle governing judicial review of charge-sheets, the Court observed that ordinarily courts should not interfere with disciplinary proceedings at their inception. Questions relating to the correctness of allegations, sufficiency of evidence and the defence of the delinquent officer are matters for the disciplinary authority to determine after a full-fledged inquiry.
Finding no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the departmental proceedings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and permitted the disciplinary authority to continue the inquiry in accordance with law. It also clarified that the observations made in the judgment were confined to deciding the writ petition and would not influence the disciplinary authority while deciding the departmental proceedings on merits.
Case Title: Vijendra Singh Rawat v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.