The Supreme Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against retired judicial officer Mukesh Tyagi over his decision to grant bail to two accused persons in a criminal case, holding that the inquiry was not warranted in the particular circumstances. The Court also directed the State of Rajasthan and the High Court to release his pending terminal benefits, including pension arrears, within three months, subject to there being no other legal impediment.
A three-judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya passed the order on October 8, 2026.
Background
Tyagi was serving as a Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in Dholpur, Rajasthan, when he granted bail to two accused, Punjab Singh and Aishveer Singh, through a common order dated May 4, 2019.
The complainant challenged the decision before the Rajasthan High Court. On September 24, 2019, the High Court cancelled the bail, observing that there had been no change in circumstances after the accused persons' earlier bail applications had been rejected.
The High Court also directed its Registry to place a copy of the order before the Chief Justice for information. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Tyagi under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, alleging gross judicial impropriety and indiscipline.
Tyagi approached the Supreme Court, challenging both the High Court's observations and the disciplinary proceedings.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the observations made by the Rajasthan High Court regarding the bail order. However, it separately examined whether initiating disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer was justified.
The Bench observed that the Chief Justice had other options available to address the issue, including counselling or warning the judicial officer to exercise greater care when deciding a subsequent bail application after an earlier rejection by the High Court.
The Court stated,
“We find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the initiation of an inquiry was not at all required. Possibly the entry of the remarks of the learned Single Judge in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) would have sufficed.”
The Bench also noted that Tyagi's Annual Confidential Report had been positive and described him as a very good officer. It took into account that he had retired on March 31, 2026, upon attaining the age of superannuation.
Explaining the appropriate course of action, the Court observed that the judicial officer could have been counselled and warned to be more careful in future and to give sufficient weight to earlier High Court orders in the same case.
The Bench further held that the memorandum dated October 25, 2024, the statement of charges and the related allegations were not warranted in the circumstances of the case.
The Supreme Court quashed the memorandum dated October 25, 2024, along with the statement of charges and related disciplinary proceedings against Tyagi.
It directed the State and the High Court to take steps to recompute his pay under the revised pay scale and release his terminal benefits, including pension and pension arrears, within three months, provided there was no other legal impediment.
While dismissing the special leave petitions challenging the High Court's 2019 observations, the Court allowed Tyagi's criminal writ petition.
It clarified that its decision was based on the peculiar facts of the case.
