Nirbhay Singh Suliya V. State of Madhya Pradesh

CASE DETAILS

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case revolved around the appellant, who joined judicial services in 1987 as a Civil Judge (Junior Division), as a part of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services. With progress & resilience, the appellant scaled up & was promoted to Additional District Judge (ADJ) in 2003. Later, he was transferred to Khargone, Madhya Pradesh’s Mandaleshwar District, as a Sessions Judge. The cause of action in the case arose from a complaint filed with the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was received from a resident named Jaipal Mehta. The complaint alleged that the appellant would be a legendary bribe-taker through his steno, Anil Joshi, and that, on receiving the same, he would grant bail, even in cases under Section 34 of the Excise Act^[1] contrary to the statutory provisions.

It was stated that the appellant had been calculating and corrupt in the determination of bail applications, regardless of the fact that multiple complaints had been made against the appellant from 1995 to 1996. Alleging that he deliberately wrongfully granted bail in 4 cases as per Section 59-A, which lays twin principles, based on which bail is granted, but the same wasn’t mentioned anywhere in his judgment. After the said complaint, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant in 2012. A whole inquiry was made by the District Judge, Indore Zone, Indore, while perusing a series of evidence by colleagues of the steno, to public prosecutors, all in favour of the appellant. Notwithstanding the above, the result of the inquiry was the removal of the appellant for violating Rule 3^[2] of the M. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 2016 against the said inquiry & punishment, which was dismissed; thus, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

 ISSUES IN DETERMINATION

 The issue for determination before the court was, simply, to examine whether the action that was taken against the appellant was justified on any ground. As mentioned below in Para 25 of the Judgement^[3]::

• Whether the order removing the appellant from the service based on the enquiry report is justified and law and whether any good ground has been made out for reference?

There was a need of actual examination of the other enquiry, which was conducted by the enquiry officer, bearing in mind that the main complainant, Jaipal Mehta, the person who had alleged the entire state of affairs based on which the enquiry was begun, was not examined by the inquiry officer. Rather, in reality, the steno, clerk officer & prosector gave testimonies in favour of the impugned appellant, despite the same, based on the four alleged orders of partiality & the fourteen orders placed on record by Appellant^[4], he was found guilty & liable to be punished.

ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES

 Averments & contentions made by the Appellant – Mr Nirbhay Singh Suliya

The senior counsel representing the appellant stated clearly the existence of lacunae in the enquiry of the District Judge, as provided in the “Facts of the Case” segment of this summary.

• While impinging upon the fact that the stenographer against whom the allegations were made of taking bribery, i.e. Anil Joshi, and the complainant who alleged the said state of affairs, Jaipal Mehta, neither of them had been examined or produced as witnesses in the department inquiry which was conducted in 2012.
• The appellant had clearly, as per law, mentioned the rationales behind his act of granting bail in the four cases alleged, and not in the fourteen cases placed on the same statutory & factual matrix, clearly representing the application of mind and prevailing precedents in the decisions he made throughout his 27 years of judicial service.
• Accepting the popular principle of bail is the rule; jail is the exception, which cannot be scrapped off, even in the presence of a special or local statute.
• Both the witnesses who were produced before the enquiry officer had no knowledge & denied all of the allegations that were made against the Appellant.
• Probability or imagination on the basis of the set of facts as alleged by the complainant cannot be considered as a sole bulwark against indicting a judicial officer; erroneous decision or error in interpretation of law cannot be the sole ground for initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

 Averments & Contentions presented by Respondent  – Madhya Pradesh High Court

The senior counsel representing the Respondent No.2, stated clearly the non-existence of impartiality & integrity in the conduct & decision making of the appellant, as provided in the “Facts of the Case” segment of this summary.

• The Respondent stated that the fullest opportunity had been provided to the delinquent to prove his stance, while perusing the orders & instances placed on record by the complainant.
• In none of the orders of bail that were provided by the judicial officer, explicitly or even implicitly acknowledge the fulfilment of the twin bail principles under Section 59A^[5].
• Based on the same, the enquiry officer concluded that the appellant was not impartial in the conduct of judicial proceedings and had applied double standards, by acting arbitrarily, thus, mala fide conduct.

JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS & its evaluation from the lens of citizenry.

The bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala & Justice K. V. Vishwanthan, on perusal of the facts & circumstances of the case, set aside the Order of the Departmental Enquiry, Appellate Authority of M. P. High Court, and the impugned order of the High Court. While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the judicial service of the appellant alongside remunration & consequential benefits, that he missed by being kept out of service.

The court flagged concerns over the frequency of persons filing false and frivolous Complaints against members of the district judiciary, believing in the principle of Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus, i.e., no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden, while commenting on the conduct of the Judicial Officer & the sanctimonious conduct that surrounds the office. The court also criticised the department’s proceedings that took place against the appellant on a mere suspicion, ill-founded, which was very inadvertently present in the complaint made by the complainant, being generic in language with no proof of the same.

There should be no fear or hesitation in the minds of such independent & impartial judicial holders, of any administrative proceeding in the pretext of their lawful & correct actions. While clearly stating under paragraph 2 of the judgement:

“Courts of the District Judiciary wield powers necessary for the functioning of the justice delivery system in India, and when their autonomy is compromised by higher quotes and fear takes precedence over judicial duties, that is when democracy and the rule of law suffer”^[6]

The court was definitely right in laying down the application of such principles, yet the higher probability of judicial officers being involved in bribery and corruption cannot be ignored totally, ranging from suspensions & transfers of high-profile judges, to the shocker, jolted by Yashwant Varma, all of which reflect staggering faith in the temples of justice. But at the same time, frivolous & vexatious complaints, based on unfounded allegations, cost significantly to holders of such dignitary offices, a bloch that remains till one’s existence, if not cleared.

Justice Pardiwala, himself, in Para 29 acknowledged that if the complaint was found to be prima facie true, prompt action was required to be taken and no leniency would be shown in that case. But it is equally true that the justification of departmental inquiry & further action, simply on the grounds of error in judgement or wrong order, is not sufficient to culminate in a Departmental enquiry, questioning the integrity of the Judicial Officer. Such observations were also found in Sadhna Chaudhary’s case. The Supreme Court itself clearly rebutted that any mere oblivious suspicion cannot constitute misconduct, until & unless it is backed or supported by oral or documentary evidence.

We must not forget that such proceedings are against the flagbearers of the backbone of Justice in India. It is equally true that everyone, independent of fear, can report such instances, but such power, even if not as rigid as required in proving guilt in criminal trials, cannot be scrapped based on mere suspicion.

As far as the question of error is concerned, Justice K. V. Vishwanathan clearly, while quoting R. R. Parekh’s case ^[7], differentiated between a mala fide or arbitrary error in judgment from that of a bona fide error. Merely based on the alleged unclear hypothesis of a complainant, the correctness of the body cannot be determined mechanically, but rather based on the conduct of the Judicial Officer. But, in no manner can be seen as a bulwark against genuine misconduct, as was rightly enumerated in Krishna Prasad Verma’s Case^[8], there remains no hard and fast rule to determine the conduct of the judge uniformly; rather, every case is to be adjudicated based on its own merits and circumstantial matrix.

If a wrong action or an error has taken place, there is always a manner of taking action to revise it or to punish the perpetrator if the conduct was mala fide. It stands dynamic & easy for the public to pinpoint the same & aid in removing black sheep from the system.

This judgement, thus, definitely, marks the growing realisation of balancing rights & honor of the judicial officers, with dignity of complainants, as far as truth & genuinety remain. While we conclude, we must understand that a high-ranking officer, vested with judicial conscience, cannot be muddled in the puddle of a “Doubtful Integrity”, unless the same is reasonable & acceptable with the given material & state of affairs. Mere possibility, assumption or allegation cannot be used as a lawful means to harras & obstruct judicial conscience for extraneous considerations.

^[1] Section 34, Penalty for unlawful manufacture, transport position, sale etc., M. P. Excise Act, 1915 (Presently, substituted by Section 3 of the same act, via Act no. 22 of 2000)

^[2] Rule 3, General Principles of Integrity & Impartiality, M. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rule, 1966

^[3]Para 25, Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 8

^[4] Para 7, Supra 3

^[5] Section 59A, Certain offence under the Act ot be non-bailable, M. P. Excise Act, 1915. (Pertains to satisfaction of court over reasonable grounds for believing non-guilt of the accused)

^[6] Para 2, Supra 3

^[7] R. Parekh V. High Court of Gujarat & Anr, (2016) 14 SCC 1

^[8] Krishna Prasad Verma V. State of Bihar & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 640