The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of Civil Judge Class-II, Mahendra Singh Taram, for acquitting accused persons in multiple criminal trials without writing proper judgments. This decision came after the court reviewed detailed charges and found them to be of serious nature.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain noted:
“All 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 serious nature. The same cannot be condoned.”
Judge Taram, who was appointed through the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission in 2003, faced allegations following a surprise inspection in 2012 by the District Judge (Vigilance). It was found that he had acquitted accused individuals in three criminal cases without issuing judgments and failed to record order-sheets in two others.
Subsequently, a departmental enquiry was launched. The Enquiry Officer concluded that Judge Taram had committed gross negligence and misconduct. The Full Court recommended his removal, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority on 2nd September 2014. His appeal was dismissed on 1st August 2016.
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Urges State to Speed Up Arbitration Tribunal Appointments Amid Long Delays
The judge defended his actions, claiming they were bonafide mistakes due to workload and personal difficulties. He also cited the case of another judge, Siddharth Sharma, who was given a lesser punishment—two increments withheld—for similar alleged lapses.
However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating:
“Parity of punishment can only be pleaded in a common enquiry, which is not the case here. Each enquiry is different in nature.”
The Court further explained that Sharma’s charges related to civil matters and not to criminal trials, which made the cases fundamentally different.
Taram had also argued that the punishment of removal from service was excessive and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But the Court emphasized that unless the punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate, it cannot interfere with the disciplinary authority’s discretion.
Quoting the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Mangayarkarasi, the bench stated:
“The imposition of a penalty in disciplinary proceedings lies in the sole domain of the employer. Unless the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved, the court cannot interfere.”
In light of these observations, the Court found no reason to interfere with the disciplinary actions taken and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Taram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 14113 of 2017
