The Supreme Court held that counselling or a warning would have been sufficient in the circumstances, instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer.

The Supreme Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Rajasthan High Court against a judicial officer who had granted bail to two accused persons despite their earlier bail applications having been rejected by the High Court.

A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya held that the initiation of a disciplinary inquiry was unwarranted in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Court observed that counselling, a warning or recording the High Court's remarks in the officer's Annual Confidential Report (ACR) would have been sufficient.

The Court also directed the Rajasthan Government and the High Court to release the retired judicial officer's pension, arrears and other terminal benefits within three months, subject to there being no other legal impediment.

Background of the Case

The matter concerned Mukesh Tyagi, who was serving as a Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act at Dholpur, Rajasthan.

In May 2019, while functioning as the Special Judge, Tyagi granted bail to two accused persons whose earlier bail applications had already been rejected by the Rajasthan High Court.

Subsequently, the High Court cancelled the bail granted by the judicial officer, observing that there had been no change in circumstances after the rejection of the earlier bail applications.

The High Court also directed that its order be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate consideration regarding the judicial officer's conduct.

Following this direction, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Tyagi under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, alleging gross judicial impropriety and indiscipline.

A disciplinary memorandum dated October 25, 2024, was issued against him. Aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings, the judicial officer approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court: Disciplinary Inquiry Was Not Necessary

The Supreme Court examined the circumstances in which the judicial officer had granted bail and the subsequent action taken by the Rajasthan High Court.

While declining to interfere with the observations made by the High Court regarding the bail orders, the Bench held that initiating formal disciplinary proceedings against the officer was unnecessary.

The Court observed that the remarks of the High Court could have been recorded in the judicial officer's Annual Confidential Report. Alternatively, the officer could have been counselled or warned to exercise greater caution while passing judicial orders.

The Bench emphasised that judicial officers must give due weight to orders previously passed by the High Court, particularly when those orders concern the same case.

However, considering the particular facts, the Court concluded that the disciplinary memorandum and the charges framed against Tyagi were not warranted.

Court Takes Note of Officer's Service Record

The Supreme Court also considered the judicial officer's service record and the fact that he had already retired from service.

The Bench noted that his Annual Confidential Reports were positive and that he had retired on March 31, 2026.

Despite his retirement, his revised pay and terminal benefits had not been released because of the pending disciplinary proceedings.

Taking these circumstances into account, the Court found that continuing the disciplinary action would not be justified.

Supreme Court Orders Release of Pension and Retirement Benefits

Allowing the judicial officer's challenge, the Supreme Court quashed the disciplinary memorandum dated October 25, 2024, along with the statement of charges and related proceedings initiated under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

The Court further directed the Rajasthan Government and the Rajasthan High Court to recompute the officer's pay under the revised pay scale and release all admissible terminal benefits, including pension and arrears, within three months.

The directions were made subject to there being no other legal impediment.

Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that its decision was confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Judicial Accountability and Disciplinary Proceedings

The judgment highlights the distinction between judicial errors and the necessity of initiating formal disciplinary action against a judicial officer.

Although judicial officers are expected to respect and give due consideration to orders passed by superior courts, the Supreme Court's decision indicates that every instance of judicial impropriety does not necessarily require a formal disciplinary inquiry.

In the present case, the Court considered counselling, a warning or an appropriate entry in the Annual Confidential Report to be sufficient measures.

The ruling does not prevent disciplinary action against judicial officers in appropriate cases. Rather, it underscores the need to consider the nature of the conduct, the surrounding circumstances and the proportionality of the response before initiating such proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision provides relief to a retired Rajasthan judicial officer who had faced disciplinary proceedings for granting bail despite earlier orders of the High Court.

By quashing the disciplinary memorandum and directing the release of retirement benefits, the Court emphasised that disciplinary action must be justified by the circumstances and that less severe corrective measures may be sufficient in appropriate cases.

The judgment also reiterates the responsibility of subordinate judicial officers to give due weight to orders passed by superior courts while exercising their judicial discretion.

Case Title: Mukesh Tyagi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Date of Decision: October 8, 2026
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO(S).58089 OF 2024  

Representation:-

For the Petitioner: P.S. Patwalia Senior Advocate, Mayank Jain Advocate, Madhur Jain Advocate, Aakrti Dhawan Advocate, Parmatma Singh Advocate-on-Record.

For the Respondents: Raju Ramachandran Senior Advocate, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar Advocate-on-Record, Mukul Kumar Advocate-on-Record, Shruti Narayan Advocate, Raji Gururaj Advocate, Nida Khan Salim Advocate.