Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Principal Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has dismissed a writ petition filed by a civil judge seeking to quash departmental proceedings initiated against him over allegations that an acquittal judgment was prepared in a pending criminal case to allegedly benefit an accused.
A division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice BP Sharma held that there was no legal bar on continuing departmental proceedings alongside a criminal prosecution and declined to interfere with the charge sheet issued by the High Court in its administrative capacity.
"The correctness of allegations, sufficiency of evidence and defence of the delinquent employee are matters falling within the domain of the disciplinary authority and not for adjudication in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution at the threshold stage.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to proceed with the departmental inquiry in accordance with law," the court observed.
The petitioner, Vijendra Singh Rawat, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service who was posted as Civil Judge (Senior Division), Indore, challenged the charge sheet issued on December 19, 2025, under Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
He contended that the departmental proceedings were initiated nearly five years after the alleged incident and should be quashed as a criminal case arising from the same facts was already pending.
The case relates to criminal proceedings against Santosh Verma. According to the High Court's order, an acquittal judgment dated October 6, 2020, was allegedly prepared even though the trial had not legally concluded.
The order further records allegations that the act formed part of a conspiracy to confer an undue benefit on the accused, whose pending criminal case had allegedly prevented him from receiving an IAS award.
The disciplinary authority treated the allegations as involving grave misconduct, abuse of judicial office and a failure to maintain the integrity expected of a judicial officer.
Rejecting the plea on the ground of delay, the Bench observed that allegations affecting the integrity of the judiciary require detailed vigilance scrutiny and that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice caused by the time taken to initiate the departmental proceedings.
