A retired Rajasthan judge whose pension and terminal benefits remained unreleased gets relief from the Supreme Court, which has quashed the disciplinary inquiry against the Rajasthan judge over a bail order, saying he could have been counselled and warned instead.
New Delhi: The memorandum dated October 25, 2024, which began disciplinary proceedings against a Rajasthan judicial officer for granting bail to two accused, has been quashed by the Supreme Court. The State and the High Court have also been told to recompute his pay and release his pension, terminal benefits and arrears within three months [Mukesh Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan and Others].
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya passed the order on October 8, 2026, in SLP (Crl.) Diary Nos. 58089/2024 and 58123/2024 with W.P.(Crl.) No. 524/2024.
Pay, pension and arrears
The Court set aside the memorandum dated October 25, 2024 (Annexure P-6) and the related charge statement, and gave this direction:
we direct the respondent(s)/State and High Court to take steps to re-compute the pay as per revised pay scale
Terminal benefits, including pension and arrears of pension, are to be released within three months, subject to no other legal impediment. The Bench limited its decision to the peculiar facts of the case and allowed the writ petition.
“Not at all required”
The special leave petitions against the High Court’s cancellation of bail were dismissed, the Bench saying that the single judge’s observations needed no modification or expunction. On the disciplinary route, however, the Court was direct:
We find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the initiation of an inquiry was not at all required.
Pointing to the officer’s positive ACR, the Court observed that he could have been summoned, impressed upon and warned about the manner in which such orders are passed. Recording the High Court’s remarks in the ACR would have sufficed, in its view.
From a bail order to a memorandum
Mukesh Tyagi was serving as a Special Judge under the POCSO Act at Dholpur when, by a common order dated May 4, 2019, he granted bail to two accused. A single judge of the Rajasthan High Court later set that order aside and cancelled the bail, observing that there was no change in circumstances after the accused’s earlier bail applications were rejected.
The High Court directed that its order be placed before the Chief Justice, and disciplinary proceedings followed under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, for alleged gross judicial impropriety and indiscipline. The officer took the memorandum to the Supreme Court. He retired on March 31, 2026, with a positive record in his Annual Confidential Reports, but his revised pay and terminal benefits remained unreleased.
The Supreme Court has dealt with strictures against judicial officers in bail matters before. In Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2025 INSC 871, July 2025), a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta struck out a Rajasthan High Court single judge’s criticism of a District Judge-cadre officer who had granted bail, because he was given no chance to explain, and said High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against judicial officers. That ruling dealt with remarks in a judicial order and did not decide whether an erroneous bail order can found disciplinary action.
How far the ruling goes
A bail order that the High Court found wanting is, on this reasoning, a matter for correction on the judicial side and, at most, a note in the officer’s confidential report, and not a trigger for a full inquiry. The ruling sits alongside earlier decisions that caution against turning appellate disagreement into misconduct.
Since the Bench ruled on the peculiar facts, the decision does not lay down that no erroneous order can ever attract disciplinary action. For this officer, its practical effect is the release of retirement dues that had been held up.
Case Title: Mukesh Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan and Others [SLP (Crl.) Diary Nos. 58089/2024 and 58123/2024 with W.P.(Crl.) No. 524/2024]
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia with Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Aakrti Dhawan and Parmatma Singh (AOR) for the petitioner; Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran with S. Udaya Kumar Sagar (AOR), Mukul Kumar (AOR), Shruti Narayan, Raji Gururaj and Nida Khan Salim for the respondents