Eight Years Out Of Service Was Punishment Enough, The Court Said

What the judiciary demands

The Court set out the standard first: a judge must display an exceptional degree of patience, self-restraint, impartiality and dignity, both while presiding and in every interaction outside the courtroom.

These are enduring values intrinsic to the judicial office and are not diluted merely because society is changing quickly. The greater the pace of change, the greater the need to adhere to them, because they are the foundation of the rule of law and of public confidence in the administration of justice.

Why the penalty was still too much

The misconduct proved concerned the petitioner's attitude and conduct towards police personnel during the incident. The allegations involve no charge of corruption, no lack of integrity, no moral turpitude, no abuse of judicial office for personal gain and no dishonest motive, and there is no allegation of any such conduct at any other point in his service.

He was then a very young judicial officer at his first station, having completed only the first phase of institutional training, and was still on probation. His conduct cannot be countenanced and falls short of the standards expected, but it could not be treated as misconduct warranting the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 9(8).

Having regard to the nature of the misconduct, the absence of any allegation touching integrity or honesty, and the stage of service at which it occurred, the punishment was unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate.

What was ordered

The findings of the Inquiry Officer, affirmed by the disciplinary authority, were upheld on Charges 1 and 2. The disciplinary authority's findings on Charges 3 to 6 were set aside and the Inquiry Officer's findings that those charges are not proved were restored.

The order of compulsory retirement of 4 January 2018 and the consequential proceedings could not be sustained and were set aside, and reinstatement directed.

Because he has lost the major part of his service since January 2018 and returns to his original post without consequential benefits, that itself was treated as the punishment for the charges proved. As he did not discharge duties in the interval and was actively practising as an advocate on a renewed enrolment, the principle of no work, no pay applies: no back wages or other consequential monetary or service benefits, seniority fixed from the date of reinstatement, and the balance of his training to be undergone.

Who argued it

Frequently asked

When is a punishment shockingly disproportionate?

Where, measured against the misconduct actually proved and the officer's circumstances, it is unduly harsh. Compulsory retirement was held to be so here.

Do I get back wages on reinstatement?

Not necessarily. No work, no pay was applied because the officer was practising as an advocate meanwhile.

Attacking a punishment as disproportionate

1. Separate the charges proved from those set aside; the penalty is measured against what survives.
2. Show what the misconduct is not — no corruption, no dishonesty — as clearly as what it is.
3. Put the stage of service on record: probation and first posting mattered here.
4. Expect reinstatement without back wages where the officer earned elsewhere in the interval.

Source. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, W.P. No. 12901 of 2018, decided 18 August 2026 by Justice P.SAM KOSHY, Justice NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.

Claw tracks High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in