New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Monday, expressed disgust at the alleged misconduct of a civil judge from Madhya Pradesh during a train journey.
The judge allegedly misbehaved with fellow passengers in an inebriated condition and even urinated inside the train compartment.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also questioned the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to interfere with the disciplinary action taken against the judge.
“We fail to understand how the High Court has (acted)… Disgusting conduct of a judicial officer. You have managed to turn all the witnesses hostile. This is a shocking case. You urinated in the compartment. There was a lady,” the Supreme Court said, as reported by NDTV.
The High Court, in May 2025, partly allowed a plea filed by the civil judge challenging his termination from service over the alleged misconduct.
The High Court had then observed that a railway magistrate’s court had acquitted the civil judge of allegations that he misbehaved in the train compartment after a detailed review of the evidence.
The decision to terminate his services would not stand in such a scenario, the HC concluded and recommended that only a minor penalty be imposed for some of the lesser charges framed against him during the departmental inquiry.
This ruling was, however, challenged before the Supreme Court by the High Court’s administrative side and its Principal Registrar (Vigilance).
The Apex Court has now sought the state’s response in the matter.
The incident is said to have occurred in 2018, when the judicial officer was travelling from Indore to Jabalpur by train, allegedly without obtaining prior permission or informing his superiors about his absence from duty.
During the journey, the civil judge allegedly consumed alcohol, created a disturbance, abused co-passengers and railway staff, obstructed the Travelling Ticket Examiner from discharging his official duties, and misused his judicial identity card to threaten other passengers.
It is also alleged that he exposed himself and urinated on the seat of a woman co-passenger.
“Respondent No. 1 (Civil Judge) further indulged in an extremely indecent conduct by urinating on the seat of a female co-passenger, exposing his private parts and committing an act of gross obscenity which is unbecoming of a judge,” the petition filed in the matter by the High Court’s administrative side stated.
“Gross and grave misconduct of judge had been condoned by the High Court,” the petition said.
A criminal case against the judge was registered under the Railways Act, based on a complaint by the TTE.
The enquiry officer found all charges true, and a recommendation of the civil judge’s removal from service was made by the Administrative Committee.
A full court also approved the proposed removal of the civil judge, leading to the Governor’s order terminating the judicial officer’s services in September 2019.
However, the officer was later acquitted after key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the woman passenger, turned hostile.
The High Court started parallel departmental proceedings against him. In May 2025, the Court set aside the termination, relying on the officer’s acquittal in the criminal case.
The High Court’s administration, in its plea, pointed out that the acquittal was not based on a finding of innocence, but happened because key witnesses did not support the case in court.
The petition further contended that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by replacing the findings of the enquiry officer, the Administrative Committee, and the Full Court with its own assessment.
