Judicial misconduct requires proof beyond a debatable bail order, not mere omission to cite the governing provision.

Disciplinary removal of a judicial officer cannot rest solely on the omission to cite Section 59-A in four bail orders. The record must disclose cogent material showing misconduct, corrupt motive, extraneous consideration, recklessness, favouritism, or another lack of bona fides; here, the general complaint was unsupported, the complainant was not examined, the supporting witness did not establish the charge, and defence evidence, including the public prosecutor's testimony, supported the genuineness of the orders. A wrong or debatable judicial order, by itself, is not misconduct, and findings based only on such an inference are perverse when unsupported by evidence. The removal and appellate orders were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether removal from service of a judicial officer was justified solely on the basis of four bail orders that did not expressly refer to Section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, and whether the findings in the departmental inquiry were sustainable.

Analysis: The charge rested on an inference of corrupt motive or extraneous consideration drawn only from the absence of an express reference to Section 59-A in four bail orders. The complaint was general, the complainant was not examined, the witness supporting the charge did not substantiate it, and the defence evidence, including the public prosecutor's testimony, supported the genuineness of the bail orders. The orders themselves disclosed reasons such as delay in trial, filing of challan, residence of the applicants, and absence of flight risk. Mere omission to cite the statutory provision, without material showing that the decision-making process was tainted by dishonesty, corruption, recklessness, or favouritism, could not justify disciplinary action. A wrong or debatable judicial order, by itself, is not misconduct, and disciplinary findings based only on such an inference are perverse when unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The removal order and the appellate order could not be sustained, and interference was warranted in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: Disciplinary action against a judicial officer cannot rest merely on the legal correctness of bail orders or on the non-mention of a statutory provision; there must be cogent material showing misconduct, extraneous influence, or lack of bona fides.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial officer cannot be subjected to punishment merely because a bail order is arguably erroneous or does not expressly cite the governing provision; disciplinary action is justified only where the record discloses material establishing misconduct, corrupt motive, extraneous consideration, or a finding so unsupported by evidence that it is perverse.

---