No Judge Can Be Dismissed from Service for Granting Default Bail Mandated by Law: Rajasthan High Court Slams Misconduct Finding Against Judge Who Granted Default Bail

“The delinquent officer had no choice but to grant statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC — inference of misconduct in such a case is perverse and without legal foundation” - In a powerful reaffirmation of judicial independence and statutory fidelity, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur delivered a landmark decision where setting aside the dismissal of a judicial officer who had granted default bail to an undertrial under Section 167(2) CrPC. The High Court ruled that granting bail on statutory grounds cannot constitute misconduct, and declared the disciplinary proceedings as vitiated by perversity, procedural lapses, and reliance on irrelevant evidence.

“No discretion lies with a judge when the statute itself commands bail — the officer was legally bound to grant bail after expiry of 90 days without chargesheet”

The case involved late Shri B.D. Saraswat, a Special Judge under the NDPS Act, who was dismissed from service on allegations of misconduct for granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act after a change in defence counsel. The High Court found that the bail was not discretionary, but was granted under the statutory right of default bail, as the accused had been in custody for 157 days without a chargesheet being filed. The judgment emphasized:

"If the conditions under Section 167(2) CrPC are satisfied, the judge is under a statutory compulsion to grant bail — it is not an act of judicial indulgence but of legal obligation.” [Para 31]

The High Court overturned the Enquiry Officer’s report dated 06.03.2009, the Full Court’s resolutions dated 01.07.2009 and 02.02.2010, and the Governor’s dismissal order dated 08.04.2010, terming the entire disciplinary process as legally untenable and administratively flawed.

“Vague Allegations, No Evidence, and Misuse of Unrelated Cases — Court Finds Enquiry Report a Textbook Case of Perversity”

“The charge of extraneous consideration was never particularised, never supported by evidence, and based on irrelevant material — no reasonable person could have reached such a conclusion”

The disciplinary action against the judge was rooted in a complaint by an advocate whose two earlier bail applications for the same accused had been rejected. He alleged that the bail granted by the judge on a third application filed by a different advocate was due to “extraneous considerations”. However, the High Court found that this third bail application was for statutory bail, not on merits.

The Court noted with concern that the Enquiry Officer’s findings were based on unrelated bail orders passed in respect of two other accused — Ramesh and Ayub — who were not even part of the charge. This, the Court held, fatally vitiated the report:

"Findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as accepted by the Full Court, suffer from perversity and are unsupported by evidence." [Para 34]

"Reliance on bail orders in cases not part of the charge-sheet to conclude differential treatment is impermissible — such use of extraneous material renders the enquiry fundamentally flawed.” [Para 35]

The Court invoked Supreme Court precedents, including Abhay Jain v. Rajasthan High Court, (2022) 13 SCC 1, and Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad, to stress that disciplinary action against judicial officers cannot be based merely on suspicion, nor can judicial orders be equated with misconduct, unless proven to be actuated by malice or corruption.

"Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers cannot rest on vague allegations or a mere change of outcome — strong evidence of malafide is required.” [Para 33]

“Principles of Natural Justice Not a Ritual — Full Court's Action and Governor's Order Were Legally Deficient”

“No effective opportunity was given to respond before punishment — the officer’s reply was ignored, and dismissal was mechanically recommended”

The High Court found that the Full Court of the High Court, while accepting the enquiry report, did not provide proper opportunity to the officer to respond, and even after he submitted his reply to the report, it was not considered. The Governor’s order of dismissal, passed later, was non-speaking and did not reflect any independent application of mind. The Court held:

"Governor’s order, being a product of a flawed process, cannot be sustained — the entire chain of disciplinary action stands vitiated.” [Para 43]

While the respondents argued that a hearing before the Governor was not mandatory under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, the Court clarified that the right to a meaningful hearing arises before the decision is taken, especially when adverse findings are drawn from legally defective material.

The Court reiterated:

"Even if the Governor is not required to write an elaborate order, the recommendation based on an invalid enquiry and unreasoned Full Court decision cannot stand judicial scrutiny.” [Para 42]

“Reinstatement Not a Charity but a Right — Deceased Officer Deemed Reinstated with Full Back Wages and Pension”

“Respondents failed to establish any exception to deny back wages — full service continuity and pension benefits directed”

Having found the dismissal unlawful, the High Court granted complete relief, treating the deceased officer as deemed reinstated till the date of retirement (28.02.2011). The respondents had failed to show any circumstances — such as financial burden, closure of post, or alternative employment — that could justify denial of back wages. The Court held:

"When termination is found illegal, reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule — exceptions must be proved, not presumed.” [Para 44]

Accordingly, the Court directed payment of:

• Full back wages from 08.04.2010 to 28.02.2011

• Continuity of service

• All consequential benefits including pension

• Pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased officer

"The pensionary benefits shall be granted to the family of the petitioner accordingly." [Para 46]

The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling is a robust defence of rule of law and a safeguard for judicial independence. It sends a clear message that statutorily compelled judicial acts cannot be second-guessed through disciplinary machinery, and that any allegation of misconduct must meet the highest standards of evidence — not mere suspicion or professional rivalries.

In striking down the dismissal, the Court reaffirmed:

"When statutory bail becomes due, the judicial officer is under compulsion of law — to label such action as misconduct is to erode the foundation of an independent judiciary."

Date of Decision: 03 November 2025