SC stays reinstatement of Madhya Pradesh judge sacked for misbehaviour
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the reinstatement of a Madhya Pradesh judge who was dismissed from service in 2019 for allegedly misbehaving with a woman co-passenger in a train while in an inebriated state
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the reinstatement of a Madhya Pradesh judge who was dismissed from service in 2019 for allegedly misbehaving with a woman co-passenger in a train while in an inebriated state, with the top court describing the case as “shocking”, “disgusting” and observing that “nothing less than termination” was warranted in such circumstances.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta admitted an appeal challenging the May 2025 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that quashed the termination of civil judge Navneet Singh Yadav and directed his reinstatement. The bench stayed the operation of the high court’s order.
“It is a shocking case...He urinated in the compartment and there was a lady present...disgusting...You should have been dismissed. Your conduct is completely unbecoming of a judicial officer. You misbehaved with a woman in a drunken state… that is the charge against you,” the bench told senior advocate Shailesh Madiyal, appearing for the judge.
When Madiyal argued that most witnesses had not supported the prosecution case in the criminal proceedings under the Railway Act and that Yadav had been acquitted, the bench retorted: “You must have used your influence to see to it that all witnesses turn hostile.”
The counsel sought to suggest that the case arose out of a dispute with a local MLA, prompting the bench to remark, “That does not mean you will do whatever you want.”
Issuing notice in the appeal, the court stayed the impugned high court judgment.
Yadav, then posted as a civil judge at Shahpur in Dindori district, was travelling from Hoshangabad to Jabalpur on June 16, 2018, when he allegedly misbehaved with a woman co-passenger in the Indore-Jabalpur Overnight Express. He was accused of being intoxicated, creating a nuisance, abusing co-passengers and railway staff, and forcing passengers to pull the emergency chain, delaying the train.
Following a complaint, a criminal case was registered under the Railway Act, and Yadav was also arrested. He was subsequently placed under suspension, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court instituted a departmental inquiry.
Based on the inquiry report, the administrative committee of the high court recommended his termination, which was endorsed by the full court. Acting on the recommendation, the state government dismissed Yadav from service in September 2019.
One of the most serious charges alleged that Yadav, while intoxicated, told co-passengers that he was a judge, displayed his judicial identity card, attempted to urinate on the berth of a woman passenger, and ultimately urinated in front of her berth after she screamed, thereby committing an “indecent, obscene and overt act” by exposing himself in the train compartment.
He was also charged with concealing his arrest from the district judge and violating the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, 1999” – a code for judges that mandates the highest standards of conduct from members of the judiciary.
Shockingly, in May 2025, a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by its then chief justice Suresh Kumar kait, set aside Yadav’s termination, holding that the departmental authority failed to give “cogent reasons” for differing from the outcome of the criminal trial, in which Yadav was acquitted. Justice Kait’s judgment noted the absence of medical evidence proving intoxication and held that the departmental inquiry had not brought any new material beyond what was considered in the criminal case. It termed the penalty of termination “arbitrary” and “disproportionate”.
The bench exonerated Yadav of the most serious charges relating to drunken misbehaviour, indecent acts and violation of judicial values, and confined culpability to two charges -- leaving headquarters without prior permission and failing to inform the district judge of his arrest. Holding that these lapses were procedural and not indicative of moral turpitude or dishonesty, the high court quashed the termination order and directed his reinstatement within 15 days, while allowing the authorities to impose a minor penalty.
