JAGAT MOHAN CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who was a Judge working as Special Judge (SC/ST) at the relevant point of time with District Judiciary of Madhya Pradesh and his service was terminated by the impugned order dtd. 19/10/2015, passed by Respondent No.1, pursuant to a Full Court decision taken by the Respondent No.2, and the statutory appeal preferred by him was dismissed by order dtd. 1/8/2016.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows :-(i) The Petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge Class II on 30/10/1987 and was confirmed on the said post in the year 1990. He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge Class I on 13/5/1994 and was further promoted to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 9/9/1998. On 31/7/2000, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Higher Judicial Service (Entry Grade) and was given Selection Grade on 20/8/2008. In paragraph 5.5 of the petition, it is averred that the service record of the Petitionerwas blemish less and in his entire career, not a single punishment was awarded to him and never ever was even a notice issued to him in relation to the discharge of his official duties or otherwise. It is relevant to state here that both the Respondents have not given para-wise rebuttal to the averments made in the petition. Under the circumstances, the averment made in Para 5.5 of this petition stands uncontroverted. (ii) On 24/2/2015, a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner in respect of certain misconduct. The said charge sheet is Annexure P/1. On 11/3/2015, the Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet and specifically answered the charges levelled against him in respect of grant of bail to students, who were involved in the case of VYAPAM and he also explained the facts and circumstances under which the bail of co-accused was rejected. It is further the case of the Petitioner that he released the accused/students on anticipatory bail on 29/1/2014, 30/1/2014 and 31/1/2014 under Ss. 419 and 420 of the IPC and Ss. 3 & 4 of the Pariksha Adhiniyam (triable by the JMFC), in view of absence of any material available against the accused/ medical students and that all the offences were triable by the Court of the Magistrate and the maximum sentence that could be imposed in those cases were three years imprisonment, with the exception of S. 420 which was punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years.Thereafter on 14/2/2014, 20/2/2014 and 28/2/2014, some bail applications relating to FIR's registered at P.S Jhansi Road, Gwalior,were dismissed as offences under Ss. 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 of the IPC were registered against the applicants in those cases and the said offences were triable by the Court of Sessions. A copy of the reply submitted by the Petitioneris Annexure P/2.(iii) In the departmental enquiry held against the Petitioner, only one witness by the name of Jor Singh Bhadoria was examined and the Petitioner says that not a single document was exhibited by the prosecution witness and the enquiry was closed. The averment made in paragraph 5.8 has not specifically been controverted by the Respondents in their reply. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 has stated that in a departmental enquiry, the strict rules of evidence do not apply and therefore, a document which has been relied upon in the course of the enquiry, which was not exhibited by the Investigating officer through Jor Singh Bhadoria, the sole witness examined in this case, was not fatal to the case of the Respondent No.2. The written defence of the Petitioner is Annexure P/4. (iv) The Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed enquiry report holding that the charges against the Petitioneras proved. A copy of the enquiry report is filed as Annexure P/5 to the petition. Against the enquiry report, the Petitioner filed his reply. (v) Thereafter, on 19/10/2015, the impugned order was passed by Respondent No.2 whereby, the Petitioner was dismissed from service without considering the reply filed by him as so averred in the petition. Against the order of termination, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the same was dismissed on 1/8/2016, without assigning any reasons, as so stated by Ld. Counsel for thePetitioner. A copy of the appeal and the order passed therein are part are Annexure P/8 and P/9 to the petition.

(3.) It is necessary to refer to the Articles of charge dtd. 24/2/2015, which was served upon the Petitioner. The first Article of charge is that when the Petitioner was functioning as Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, he granted anticipatory bail to eight applicants vide common order dtd. 29/1/2014. While in other applications for anticipatory bail arising from the same crime No. (Crime No.449/2013), the Petitioner is alleged to have rejected the bail applications of nineteen applicants vide common order dtd. 14/2/2014 and is also stated to have rejected the application under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. of one of the applicants by the same order dtd. 14/2/2014. It is further the charge that the allegations, facts, and circumstances appearing against all these accused persons were similar to those who were granted anticipatory bail. It is relevant to mention here that, but for stating that there has been a divergence in the nature of relief granted or denied by the Petitioner, there is no imputation of any corrupt/oblique or extraneous considerations for this divergence of opinion.