The Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has upheld the removing of civil decide Kaustubh Khera, who has been the topic of a number of complaints, together with that he would allegedly compel attorneys and law enforcement officials to the touch their ears and carry out sit-ups in open court docket as an apology in contempt proceedings.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain dismissed Khera’s plea towards his removing, holding that the discharge was based mostly not on disciplinary motion, however on unsatisfactory efficiency throughout probation.
Khera was appointed a judicial officer in 2019 and was discharged from service on September 5, 2024, by the Madhya Pradesh authorities, following the advice of the Excessive Courtroom Administrative Committee dated August 8, 2024, and ratification by the Full Courtroom on August 20, 2024.
In his petition, Khera contended that his removing was punitive and carried out with out conducting an inquiry. He cited seven complaints towards him, which included misbehaviour with advocates, initiating after which dropping contempt proceedings towards attorneys and police personnel, demanding apologies via ear-holding and sit-ups, related therapy of police personnel, misbehavior with court docket employees together with girls, verbal abuse, threats of bodily assault, and chasing employees members off their seats throughout court docket hours.
The complaints had been filed by the Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace, the Principal District and Periods Decide, the Bar Affiliation, and the Superintendent of Police. One grievance famous that Khera fined his court docket peon Rs 50 and sentenced him to 2 months in jail with out correct authority.
Khera argued that he had initiated contempt proceedings solely to refer them to the Excessive Courtroom, and closed them himself after receiving apologies. He claimed his directives to employees had been aimed toward enhancing court docket functioning.
The Courtroom, nonetheless, held that the discharge was not punitive.
Story continues beneath this advert
In a Could 7 judgment, the court docket noticed, “The impugned termination order simpliciter mentions that the petitioner was unable to hold out the probation interval satisfactorily and efficiently. No different purpose is assigned. Due to this fact, the order can’t be termed to be punitive by any stretch of creativeness. It’s merely a case of discharge/termination simpliciter upon adjudging suitability of the officer involved for affirmation and being discovered unsuitable.”
“Taking a punitive motion for misconduct is one factor, and arriving at a satisfaction that whether or not the officer would form into an acceptable officer or not, on the premise of efficiency throughout probation interval, is an altogether totally different factor. There’s a complete lot of distinction between the 2, and within the current case, it’s duly established from the aforesaid orders and resolutions that the petitioner has under no circumstances been punished nor the discharge order, from any angle, is punitive in nature,” the court docket noticed.
© The Indian Categorical Pvt Ltd