The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a civil judge who was found to have acquitted accused in at least three cases without writing any judgment [Mahendra Singh Taram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh]..The Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain said such grave misconduct cannot be condoned and rejected the plea moved by Civil Judge Class-II Mahendra Singh Taram to challenge his removal from service in 2014.“When we look into the record, it is noted that all the 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 service nature,” the Court said..Taram had moved the High Court in 2016 after a representation made by him against his dismissal was rejected in 2016. He has been appointed as a judicial officer in 2003. A surprise inspection in 2012 revealed that he had acquitted the accused in three criminal cases without writing the final verdict. It was also found he had adjourned two other criminal cases without drawing order-sheets. An Enquiry Officer later found all five charges against Taram proved, leading to a Full Court decision to remove Taram from service..In the petition challenging this decision, Taram argued that his mistake was bonafide as he was performing the duties under the pressure of workload as well as personal difficulties.However, his main argument was that another judicial officer, who faced similar allegations, had been subjected to a much lesser punishment of withholding two increments. .The Court, however, noted that the charges against the other judicial officer were not on the same footing. The charge against the other judicial officer had been that in some civil matters, he declared the cases to be decided without written judgments. The other allegation against him was that he had decided some civil matters, but had not deposited the case files in the record room.“The charges which were levelled against Shri Siddharth Sharma are different in comparison to the charges of the petitioner; therefore, the petitioner cannot claim negative parity with the order, inasmuch as both the disciplinary proceedings conducted against them are different and not on similar footing,” the Court said, while rejecting Taram's claim of parity.Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld Taram’s dismissal from service..Senior Advocate Rameshwar Singh Thakur with advocate Vinayak Prasad Shah represented the petitioner (Taram). Government Advocate Anubhav Jain represented the State of Madhya Pradesh.Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari with advocate Divya Pal represented the High Court..[Read Judgment]
