New Delhi,12Jan2026: The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed strong disapproval over the alleged conduct of a Madhya Pradesh civil judge accused of obscene behaviour during a train journey, terming the episode “disgusting” and questioning the Madhya Pradesh High Court for interfering with disciplinary action that had led to his termination.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed their disgust with the conduct of the civil judge while hearing an appeal filed by the High Court’s administrative side against its May 2025 judgment that set aside the judge’s removal from service. The Bench indicated prima facie disagreement with the High Court’s approach in treating the officer’s criminal acquittal as sufficient to nullify departmental findings.
“We fail to understand how the High Court has interfered… 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 Court observed.
The case relates to an incident in 2018, when the civil judge was travelling from Indore to Jabalpur by train, allegedly without informing his superiors or obtaining leave. According to the allegations, he consumed alcohol, created a disturbance, abused co-passengers and railway staff, obstructed the Travelling Ticket Examiner from performing official duties, misused his judicial identity card, and exposed himself and urinated on a woman co-passenger’s seat.
“Respondent No. 1 (Civil Judge) further indulged in extremely indecent conduct by urinating on the seat of a female co-passenger … committing an act of gross obscenity unbecoming of a judge,” states the appeal filed by the High Court’s administrative wing.
Following a complaint by the TTE, a criminal case under the Railways Act was registered. The judge was later acquitted by the railway Magistrate Court after key witnesses, including the complainant and the woman passenger, turned hostile. Parallel departmental proceedings, however, found all charges proved. The Enquiry Officer recommended removal, which was endorsed by the Administrative Committee of the High Court and the Full Court, culminating in the Governor’s order terminating his services in September 2019.
In May 2025, the High Court set aside the termination, relying on the acquittal by the Magistrate Court and suggesting that only a minor penalty be imposed for certain ancillary charges. Challenging this, the High Court’s administration has stated before the Supreme Court that the acquittal was not on merits but resulted from hostile witnesses, and could not amount to disciplinary exoneration.
“By re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions… the Division Bench transgressed the narrow limits of judicial review under Article 226,” the plea contends, adding that the judicial office demands a higher standard of conduct and that interference with removal would erode institutional discipline and public confidence.
The Supreme Court has issued notice and sought the State’s response.
Picture credit social media
