NIRBHAY SINGH SULIYA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 05-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 91 : 2026 INSC 7
Nirbhay Singh Suliya 
v. 
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2026)
05 January 2026
[J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Vishwanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether on facts, based on the four judicial orders of grant of bail 
per se and without anything more, the authorities were justified in 
removing the appellant-Judicial Officer from service.
Headnotes†
Judiciary – District judiciary – Departmental proceedings 
against Judicial Officer on the allegation that extraneous 
considerations actuated passing of bail orders – Mere wrong 
order or wrong exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself 
without anything more, not a ground to initiate departmental 
proceedings against Judicial Officers – Complainant lodged 
complaint with the Chief Justice of the High Court inter alia 
alleging that the appellant-Additional District Judge was taking 
bribe through his steno for grant of bail in cases under the 
Excise Act in which the quantity of seized liquor was 50 Bulk 
liters or more – Appellant was removed from service after 
27 years of unblemished service solely on the basis of four 
judicial orders by which he enlarged certain parties therein 
on bail – Those four orders were contrasted with fourteen 
other orders of bail and after finding that in the four orders 
s.59-A, Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 was not referred to, 
it was held that it was proved that for corrupt motive or for 
some extraneous consideration bail applications were allowed 
contrary to s.59-A, Excise Act – Appellant filed writ petition 
before the High Court challenging the order of removal and 
the order of appellate authority and prayed for reinstatement 
with consequential benefits – Dismissed – Interference with:
Held: Only because an order is wrong or there is an error of 
judgment, without anything more, a judicial officer should not 
* Author
92
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding or a 
prosecution – Merely because a different conclusion was possible 
is not an indicium for misconduct – Disciplinary Authority has to 
examine whether there has emerged from the record, one or more 
circumstances that indicate that the decision which forms the basis 
of the charge of misconduct was not an honest exercise of judicial 
power – Appellant was held guilty of misconduct only based on 
certain judicial orders granting bail without anything more – No 
material on record to show that there are circumstances from 
which inference could be drawn that extraneous considerations 
actuated the passing of those orders of bail – The hypothesis was 
drawn only on the basis that the order did not make reference 
to the statutory provision expressly – Moreover, a perusal of the 
four orders show that reasons were given, though there is no 
express mention s.59-A (2), Excise Act – The finding that in 14 
other orders he referred to s.59-A (2), Excise Act is by itself not 
enough to infer misconduct in the passing of the four bail orders in 
question – It will be a dangerous proposition to hold that judgments 
and orders which do not refer expressly to statutory provisions 
are per se dis-honest judgments – Findings in the inquiry report 
are perverse and not supported by the evidence on record – High 
Court erred in not interfering with the order – Order of removal, the 
order of Appellate Authority and the impugned order of the High 
Court set aside – Appellant shall be deemed to have continued 
in service till he attained the normal age of superannuation – 
Since the appellant has been kept out of service for no fault of 
his, full back wages with all consequential benefits be given to 
him – Per Pardiwala, J. [Concurring] Mere wrong order or wrong 
exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself without anything 
more, cannot be a ground to initiate departmental proceedings.  
[Paras 29, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 1]
Judiciary – District judiciary – Allegations against judicial 
officers – Duty of High Court – Note of caution:
Held: High Court which is vested with the supervisory control has 
to exercise great caution and circumspection – Only because an 
order is wrong or there is an error of judgment, without anything 
more, a judicial officer should not be put through the ordeal of a 
disciplinary proceeding or a prosecution – Merely because the order 
is wrong, disciplinary action is not warranted and each case will 
depend upon the facts and no 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.