The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to interfere with disciplinary proceedings initiated against a judicial officer accused of misconduct in connection with the alleged preparation of an acquittal judgment while the underlying criminal trial was still pending. The Court held that the existence of a parallel criminal prosecution does not, by itself, prevent departmental proceedings from continuing.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma dismissed a writ petition challenging a charge-sheet issued under Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The Bench observed that courts ordinarily do not interfere at the stage of issuance of a charge-sheet unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

The petitioner, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service, was serving as the V Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore, when allegations surfaced regarding Criminal Trial No. 1621 of 2019 (State v. Santosh Verma). During vigilance scrutiny, it was alleged that an acquittal judgment dated October 6, 2020, had been prepared even though the criminal proceedings had not legally concluded.

According to the allegations, the purported judgment was intended to confer an undue advantage upon the accused, who was allegedly unable to receive an IAS award because the criminal case remained pending.

Following an administrative inquiry, the High Court placed the judicial officer under suspension and, on December 19, 2025, issued a departmental charge-sheet containing detailed articles of charge along with supporting documents, witness lists and the appointment of an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer.

The petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by an unexplained delay, pointing out that the alleged misconduct dated back to 2020 while the charge-sheet was issued only in late 2025. It was contended that this delay had adversely affected the ability to effectively defend against the allegations.

The petitioner further submitted that both the criminal prosecution and the departmental inquiry arose from the same set of facts and relied upon substantially similar evidence. Proceeding simultaneously with the departmental inquiry, it was argued, would prejudice the defence in the pending criminal case by compelling disclosure of the petitioner's stand before the criminal trial concluded.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that allegations involving members of the judiciary require careful vigilance scrutiny before disciplinary proceedings are initiated. The Bench observed that the petitioner had failed to establish any concrete prejudice caused by the passage of time, adding that a mere assertion of prejudice, without supporting material, was insufficient to invalidate the proceedings.

The Court also reiterated that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. do not create an automatic rule requiring departmental proceedings to be stayed whenever a criminal prosecution is pending. Whether both proceedings should continue simultaneously depends upon the facts of each case.

Emphasising the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judicial system, the Bench observed that allegations affecting the integrity of judicial institutions are of the highest seriousness and cannot ordinarily remain pending indefinitely merely because criminal proceedings are yet to conclude.

The Court further noted that the charge-sheet was supported by specific allegations, documentary material and a list of witnesses, and therefore could not be characterised as vague or arbitrary.

Finding no legal infirmity in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and permitted the departmental inquiry to continue in accordance with law. It clarified, however, that the observations made in its order were confined to the challenge against the charge-sheet and would not influence the merits of the disciplinary inquiry.

Case: VSR v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others. Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma. Order Date: June 24, 2026.