Inquiry Against Judge for Granting Bail Not Warranted: Supreme Court Quashes Charges, Orders Retired Judge's Dues Paid

As Special Judge (POCSO), Dholpur, the petitioner granted bail on 04.05.2019 to two accused in a 2016 FIR (para 2). On 24.09.2019 a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur cancelled the bail, finding no change of circumstances since the High Court had dismissed their earlier plea, called the grant a gross illegality and sent the order to the Chief Justice (paras 3, 7). On 25.10.2024 the High Court issued a memorandum and charges under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 for gross judicial impropriety (paras 4, 8). He challenged both the remarks and the inquiry (paras 5, 9).

The Court declined to modify or expunge the Single Judge's observations and dismissed the special leave petitions (para 10). The question was whether the Chief Justice could have initiated disciplinary proceedings (para 11). Other avenues were open: the officer could have been summoned and warned about how he had disposed of a fresh bail plea after the High Court had refused bail, since he had not given that earlier order due weight (para 11). Initiating an inquiry was 'not at all required'; an entry of the remarks in his ACR would possibly have sufficed, or he could have been counselled to be more careful in future (para 12). The memorandum, statement of charges and allegation were therefore not warranted (para 12). The Court noted that his ACRs were positive, that he was a very good officer, and that he had retired on 31.03.2026 with his revised pay and terminal benefits unpaid (para 13). The order rests on the peculiar facts of the case (para 15).