Bhopal/Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a civil judge accused of forcing lawyers and police officers to do sit-ups or touch their ears as a way to apologize during contempt proceedings.
In a verdict dated May 7, a bench led by Chief Justice S K Kait and Justice Vivek Jain ruled that Judge Kaustubh Khera was dismissed due to “unsatisfactory performance.” The decision was made by the full court through a formal resolution.
The bench stated, “Since no misconduct was mentioned in the dismissal order, this is a simple discharge and cannot be easily overturned. It is the responsibility of the department’s senior authorities to assess an officer’s performance and decide if they should continue.”
Judge Khera, who joined the judicial services in 2019, claimed in his petition that even after completing probation, his appointment was never confirmed. He was dismissed on September 5, 2024.
Khera approached the High Court after filing an RTI (Right to Information) application to learn the reasons for his dismissal. He discovered he was “punished on disciplinary grounds.” He argued that if this was true, he should have received a notice and a chance to explain himself.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Kait and Justice Jain noted multiple complaints against Khera. These included him starting contempt cases against lawyers and police, only to close them after making them perform sit-ups or touch their ears as an apology. Khera was also accused of harassing court staff, including women employees, using abusive language, threatening people, and leaving his headquarters without permission.
Alirajpur district judge Nadeem Khan conducted a discreet inquiry into these complaints and found them to be true. However, no formal charges were filed against Khera. Later, the district’s portfolio judge reported that Khera’s behavior had caused so much anger that the situation was “explosive.”
The High Court also observed that Khera’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) from 2020 to 2023 noted a lack of interest in judicial work and “weak discretion.”
The court’s counsel stated that no “stigmatic order” was issued when Khera was dismissed, so no inquiry into misconduct was necessary.
The judgment explained, “Punishing an officer for misconduct is different from deciding whether an officer is suitable for the job based on performance during probation. The two are not the same. In this case, it is clear that Khera was neither punished nor discharged for any punitive reason.”
The court also pointed out that the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules give the High Court the power to recommend termination of probationary judicial officers if they are unsuitable.
Finding no merit in Khera’s petition, the High Court dismissed it.
