JUST AS ADITI KUMAR SHARMA WAS REINSTATED into the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services as the 4th Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahdol, pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the final order and judgment of February 28, 2025, two advisories, one dated March 10 and another of March 11, 2025, were issued to her regarding two complaints that had been kept in abeyance due to her termination from the services.
These complaints were filed by two advocates on separate occasions. One of them alleged that Sharma had refused to record a witness’s statement in a case. At the same time, the other alleged that she had written “unreasonable, unnecessary, and fabricated comments” against him and his client in the ordersheet of a case, and that she harbored ill-will towards him.
In both these advisories, Sharma was told to “behave properly with the Advocates so as to maintain cordial relations between the Bench and the Bar.” Notably, these advisories were proposed to be issued by the Principal Registrar (Vigilance) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court well before Sharma was wrongfully terminated from services; however, they were not issued until after her reinstatement, even though the said proposal formed part of the consideration which led the Full Court to conclude that her services should be terminated.
Sharma responded to these advisories and sent formal representations on March 29 and June 26, 2025 to the Principal Registrar, despite none being sought from her.
In these representations, Sharma challenged both the advisories, asserting their unjust nature. She emphasised that the advisories were a culmination of unfairly conducted and biased discreet inquiries that disregarded the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, she disclosed that, even prior to her termination, she had filed formal complaints against the mannerism of these inquiries, as well as the inquiry officer, the then District Judge (Inspection) of Jabalpur Zone, Rajesh Kumar Gupta.
