• Call Us+91 7388255933
  • Email Uslawgiconivisam@gmail.com
LaWGiCo
  • Home
  • Law Updates
    • PIL is not maintainable in service matters: Supreme Court
  • Publications
  • About Us
  • Features
  • FAQ
  • Contact Us
Login Register

Supreme Court Holds That a Judicial Officer Cannot Be Removed from Service Solely for Grant of Bail Unless There Is Cogent Evidence of Corruption, Extraneous Consideration, or Mala Fides

Supreme Court Holds That a Judicial Officer Cannot Be Removed from Service Solely for Grant of Bail Unless There Is Cogent Evidence of Corruption, Extraneous Consideration, or Mala Fides

Case Name: Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 7
Date of Judgment/Order: 05 January 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Held: The Supreme Court held that removal of a judicial officer from service solely on the basis of certain bail orders, without any independent evidence of corruption, extraneous consideration, mala fide intent, or dishonest conduct, is legally unsustainable, as a wrong or debatable judicial order, or omission to expressly refer to a statutory provision, at best amounts to an error of judgment and not misconduct warranting disciplinary punishment.

Summary: The appellant, a senior judicial officer with over 27 years of unblemished service, was removed from service following departmental proceedings initiated on the allegation that he had granted bail in certain cases under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act without expressly referring to Section 59-A, which prescribes twin conditions for bail. The disciplinary authority contrasted four bail orders granting relief with several others rejecting bail and inferred mala fides and corrupt motive. The Supreme Court examined the complaint, the inquiry proceedings, the evidence on record, and the bail orders themselves, noting that the complainant was never examined, prosecution witnesses did not support the allegations, and the public prosecutor categorically stated that the bail orders were legally proper and unchallenged by the State. Relying on settled jurisprudence on judicial discipline, the Court held that disciplinary authorities cannot sit in appeal over judicial orders and that mere omission, error, or differing interpretation of law cannot justify punitive action against a judicial officer.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, the orders of removal dated 02.09.2014, rejection of appeal dated 17.03.2016, and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 25.07.2024 were set aside, the appellant was deemed to have continued in service until superannuation, and was granted full back wages with all consequential benefits along with interest at 6% per annum, with directions to release monetary benefits within eight weeks and all pending applications disposed of.

Click here to Read/Download the Order

If You Need Any Help Contact LaWGiCo

+91 7388255933

Contact us today!

image

Whether you’re a litigant, a legal counsel, or a corporation — LaWGiCo bridges the gap between law and accessibility.

Quick Links

  • Home
  • Features
  • FAQ
  • Law Updates
  • Contact Us

Resources

  • About us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Contact us

268 GR FLR HIMSHIKHA COLONY PANCHKULA C.R.P.F. Pinjore Panchkula Haryana India 134104

+91 7388255933

lawgiconivisam@gmail.com

Open Time

Opening Day:
Monday - Friday: 8am to 6pm
Saturday: 9am to 5pm

Vacation:
All Sunday's

Copyright © 2025 LaWGiCo | All Rights Reserved