The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order directing the reinstatement of a civil judge who had allegedly urinated in front of a woman co-passenger in a drunken state onboard a train in 2018, terming the conduct “disgusting”.
“See his conduct, he urinated in a compartment and there was a lady present!” a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta orally observed, while staying the May 6, 2025, judgment of a division bench of the high court. The division bench had set aside an order passed by the high court’s administrative side recommending the removal of the judicial officer from service.
Civil judge Navneet Singh Yadav was accused of harassing the co-passengers in an inebriated state and indulging in obscene activities inside a train compartment while travelling from Bhopal to Jabalpur on the Indore Jabalpur Overnight Express on June 17, 2018.
He allegedly urinated in front of the berth of a woman co-passenger, prompting other passengers to pull the chain, causing a delay. Yadav was deboarded at Pipali, arrested and subsequently released on bail.
A showcause notice was issued to him in June 2018 and the judicial officer submitted a detailed reply to it, denying the allegations levelled against him.
He was also prosecuted under Section 145 of the Railway Act, 1989, for the same set of allegations. Following a detailed trial, the special railway magistrate, Jabalpur, acquitted him in March 2019.
Yadav was issued another showcause notice in September 2018, along with articles of charge and a preliminary inquiry report. This time, too, he denied all the charges.
In its order, the high court’s administrative side noted that the inquiry officer had found Yadav guilty of the charges. It also noted that Yadav had travelled in the train without prior permission and did not inform his superiors about his arrest. Later, the administrative committee proposed Yadav’s removal from service, which was approved by the high court in September 2019.
In compliance with the recommendation of the full court, his services were terminated by an order dated September 28, 2019.
He then approached the high court with a petition seeking the quashing of the order and the recommendation of the administrative committee, as well as the decision of the full court.
While dealing with his plea, the high court's division bench had noted that the special railway magistrate had acquitted him and recorded that there was no medical evidence on record that confirmed alcohol consumption.
"In the present case, the acquittal of the petitioner by the special railway magistrate was not merely on technical grounds or for want of prosecution; rather, it was a result of a thorough appreciation of the evidence on record," the high court had said.
It said that key prosecution witnesses, including the alleged victim, had not supported the prosecution's case and categorically failed to identify the judicial officer. It also reasoned that failing to inform superiors about his travel plans and arrest over the incident were minor procedural irregularities that did not warrant removal from service.
"This acquittal, coupled with the lack of any fresh or independent material in the departmental enquiry, casts serious doubt on the sustainability of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner (judicial officer) in disciplinary proceedings," the high court had said.
It noted that on the basis of media reports, a showcause notice was issued to the judicial officer and a departmental inquiry was initiated.
"The termination order, in light of the above facts and settled legal principles, suffers from arbitrariness and disproportionate exercise of power," the high court had said.
While quashing the termination order, it had directed that the authority may, if deemed appropriate, impose a minor penalty, strictly limited to the proven charges of not seeking prior approval for travel and not informing about the arrest.
Aggrieved by the division bench order, the high court’s registry moved the top court, which issued a notice to the judicial officer.