Bhopal: MP High Court civil judge case has drawn attention after the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to stop disciplinary proceedings against a civil judge accused of preparing an acquittal judgment before the criminal trial had legally concluded. The Court said such allegations are extremely serious because they directly affect the integrity and credibility of the judiciary. The order was passed while dismissing the judge’s petition challenging the departmental inquiry.
Details of MP High Court Civil Judge Case
The case relates to a civil judge (Senior Division) posted in Indore. The judge was accused of preparing an acquittal judgment in favour of a government officer, Santosh Verma, even though the criminal trial against him had not yet been completed.
Read also: Supreme Court Clarifies Article 12: Bar Associations Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction
According to the allegations, the judgment was allegedly prepared to benefit the officer, who was unable to receive an IAS award because the criminal case against him was still pending.
MP High Court Civil Judge Case: What did the High Court say
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma refused to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings.
The Court observed that allegations of preparing an acquittal judgment before the lawful conclusion of a criminal trial are of the “gravest nature” because they concern the integrity of the judicial institution itself. The Bench therefore dismissed the petition filed by the civil judge.
Why Was Disciplinary Action Started
The Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the allegations on its administrative side. After reviewing the available material, the disciplinary authority placed the judge under suspension and issued a charge-sheet on December 19, 2025, under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. An Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were also appointed to conduct a departmental inquiry.
Judge’s arguments before the Court
The civil judge challenged the disciplinary proceedings before the High Court. He argued that:
- The alleged incident took place in 2020.
- The charge-sheet was issued only in December 2025, causing an unreasonable delay.
- A criminal case based on the same allegations was already pending.
- Continuing departmental proceedings could affect his defence in the criminal trial.
MP High Court Civil Judge Case: State and High Court’s response
The State Government and the High Court opposed the petition. They argued that the allegations were extremely serious and related to the honesty and integrity expected from a judicial officer. They submitted that a proper departmental inquiry was necessary and should continue independently.
Court’s findings
The High Court rejected the judge’s arguments. The Bench held that the petitioner failed to prove that the delay in issuing the charge-sheet had caused any actual prejudice.
The Court also clarified that there is no legal bar on continuing departmental proceedings while a criminal case arising from the same facts is pending.
According to the Court, disciplinary authorities have an independent responsibility to examine whether a judicial officer has maintained the standards of integrity and propriety expected from members of the judiciary. Such inquiries cannot remain pending indefinitely until the criminal trial is completed.
