The High Court did not accept Taram’s arguments. It noted that the charges against him were much more serious than those against the other officer.
Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently upheld the decision to remove a Civil Judge from service after he was found guilty of acquitting accused persons in at least three criminal cases without writing proper judgments.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain passed the judgment. The Bench firmly stated that such serious misconduct cannot be tolerated in the judicial system.
The Court said, “When we look into the record, it is noted that all the five charges were proved against the petitioner. The charges are of grave misconduct that he acquitted the accused in criminal trials without writing a judgment, which are obviously of service nature.”
Civil Judge Class-II Mahendra Singh Taram was appointed as a judicial officer in the year 2003. However, during a surprise inspection in 2012, it was discovered that he had acquitted the accused in three criminal cases without passing final judgments. In addition, he had adjourned two other criminal cases without even preparing order sheets.
This led to a departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found all five charges against him to be true. Based on this, a Full Court decided to terminate Taram from service in 2014.
Taram filed a representation against his dismissal, which was rejected in 2016. Thereafter, he moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the same year challenging his dismissal order.
ALSO READ: “Fear of High Court Review Forces Trial Judges to Convict the Innocent”: Allahabad HC
Taram argued before the High Court that his actions were not intentional. He claimed the lapses happened because of workload pressure and personal problems.
According to him, it was a “bonafide mistake”.
He also claimed parity, stating that another judicial officer, who faced similar allegations, was given only a minor penalty of withholding two increments, not dismissal.
The High Court did not accept Taram’s arguments. It noted that the charges against him were much more serious than those against the other officer.
The Court said the other officer had been accused of deciding civil matters without written judgments and not depositing case files properly, which were not as grave as acquitting criminal accused without judgment.
The Bench clarified, “The charges which were levelled against Shri Siddharth Sharma are different in comparison to the charges of the petitioner; therefore, the petitioner cannot claim negative parity with the order, inasmuch as both the disciplinary proceedings conducted against them are different and not on similar footing.”
The Court concluded that Taram’s misconduct was extremely serious and violated judicial service norms. Therefore, it dismissed the petition and upheld the removal of Taram from service.
“Such grave misconduct cannot be condoned,” the Court said, rejecting his plea for reinstatement.
- Senior Advocate Rameshwar Singh Thakur and Advocate Vinayak Prasad Shah represented Taram.
- The State of Madhya Pradesh was represented by Government Advocate Anubhav Jain.
- The High Court was represented by Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari and Advocate Divya Pal.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Taram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
