Madhya Pradesh High Court denies relief to judge accused of double standards in bail orders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the dismissal of an Additional District Judge who was accused of corruption in deciding bail petitions under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act [Nirbhay Singh Suliya v State].The bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf ruled that a proper procedure was followed during the enquiry against judicial officer Nirbhay Singh Suliya."On close scrutiny of the enquiry report and the finding of the inquiring authority, we are of the considered view that allegations against the Petitioner to the effect that he had granted bail to some of the applicants without considering the provisions of Section 59-A of the M.P. Excise Act and in other cases, bail applications were dismissed after applying the said provision and the conclusion of enquiry that the allegation was proved, is based on sound reasoning," the Court said.It added that even though there may not be direct evidence to show corrupt or improper motive by the judicial order, the bail orders reveal that he had acted in a manner which cannot be approved whatsoever. "The inference of improper motive and extraneous consideration was properly drawn against the Petitioner," said the Court.The Court reiterated that it can interfere in such matters only if the process runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and such violation prejudices the concerned judge.“It is also trite law that while exercising the powers of judicial review, the High Court should not normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty in the absence of any shockingly disproportionate quantum of punishment,” the Court observed..Suliya was appointed as Civil Judge, Class II in 1987. Thereafter, he was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate. In May 2011, he was promoted after due selection as member of Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service at Entry Level and posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khargon.Two months later, a complaint was filed accusing him of indulging in corruption with the support of one stenographer, in deciding bail applications arising out of the offences registered under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act.In particular, it was alleged that Suliya had allowed four bail applications despite the fact that seized quantity of the liquor was more than 50 bulk litre.However, he had also allegedly dismissed 14 bail applications of similar nature holding that bail cannot be granted as the seized quantity was more than 50 bulk litres..In 2013, a show cause notice was issued to him by the High Court. He refuted the allegations. However, the inquiry authority found the charge of adopting double standard in deciding the bail applications stood proven against him and forwarded the report to the High Court.Subsequently, the Administrative Committee (Higher Judicial Services) recommended his removal from service.The full court of High Court endorsed this recommendation, leading to the issuance of the removal order by the State Law and Legislative Department on September 2, 2014.The judicial officer challenged the removal order through an appeal before the Governor of Madhya Pradesh. After the same was rejected on March 17, 2016, he filed the present petition..The Court noted that various cases were examined by the inquiring authority meticulously."In some of the cases wherein the bail was granted in a liberal manner without considering the relevant provisions whereas in most of the cases, same approach was not adopted which amounts to application of double standard," it observed.The Court further said that Suliya was holding the post of Additional Sessions Judge with which comes a great responsibility and he was under obligation to conduct himself in a manner befitting the post held by him."He was under duty to conduct the proceedings of bail applications in conformity with the provisions of law. He extended the benefit of bail to some applicants relying on the pronouncement of High Court and refused to grant bail to others without considering those pronouncements," the Court added.Since no violation of principles of natural justice or error was found in the procedure followed in the enquiry, the Court refused to interfere with the judicial officer's dismissal..Advocate Dhruv Verma appeared for the petitioner.Deputy Advocate General appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]