<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court stayed the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which had quashed the termination of a judicial officer who allegedly created a nuisance and urinated in front of the berth of a woman co-passenger on a train in 2018.</p><p>Calling the judicial officer's conduct as "disgusting" and "shocking", a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta orally observed that he should have been dismissed as the officer's behaviour amounted to the "grossest grave misconduct".</p><p>Expressing indignation, the bench noted, “He urinated in the compartment… There was a lady present.”</p><p>The bench, however, issued notices to both the judicial officer and the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/madhya-pradesh">Madhya Pradesh</a> government, seeking responses to a petition by the State High Court’s administrative side, challenging a division bench order issued in May. </p><p>The division bench had quashed the termination order of September 2019 and had directed that the judicial officer be reinstated within 15 days.</p><p>It was contended that the conduct of the respondent at the time of the incident was unbecoming of a judicial officer.</p><p>The plea further stressed that by substituting its own penalty on the ground of proportionality, the division bench went beyond the scope of judicial review.</p><p>It also contended that the High Court, by applying the higher criminal standard, not only disregarded the very rationale underlying service jurisprudence, but also nullified the reasoned findings of the inquiry officer, the administrative committee, and the full court.</p><p>It was also contended that while the standard of proof for criminal proceedings is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, that for departmental proceedings is “preponderance of probabilities”.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court stayed the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which had quashed the termination of a judicial officer who allegedly created a nuisance and urinated in front of the berth of a woman co-passenger on a train in 2018.</p><p>Calling the judicial officer's conduct as "disgusting" and "shocking", a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta orally observed that he should have been dismissed as the officer's behaviour amounted to the "grossest grave misconduct".</p><p>Expressing indignation, the bench noted, “He urinated in the compartment… There was a lady present.”</p><p>The bench, however, issued notices to both the judicial officer and the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/madhya-pradesh">Madhya Pradesh</a> government, seeking responses to a petition by the State High Court’s administrative side, challenging a division bench order issued in May. </p><p>The division bench had quashed the termination order of September 2019 and had directed that the judicial officer be reinstated within 15 days.</p><p>It was contended that the conduct of the respondent at the time of the incident was unbecoming of a judicial officer.</p><p>The plea further stressed that by substituting its own penalty on the ground of proportionality, the division bench went beyond the scope of judicial review.</p><p>It also contended that the High Court, by applying the higher criminal standard, not only disregarded the very rationale underlying service jurisprudence, but also nullified the reasoned findings of the inquiry officer, the administrative committee, and the full court.</p><p>It was also contended that while the standard of proof for criminal proceedings is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, that for departmental proceedings is “preponderance of probabilities”.</p>
