A judge of the Rajasthan high court Arun Madan has stopped attending the court after his reported indictment by a high level panel, appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

Justice Madan did not turn up in the court in Jaipur on Friday and Saturday after national daily Indian Express reported that he had been indicted in a sex scandal by the three-judge probe panel.

The panel consists of Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana high court B K Roy, a judge of Delhi high court Devendra Gupta and a judge of Patna high court Aftab Alam.

Quoting the retired chief justice of India G B Pattanaik the paper on Friday said that Madan had not only been indicted in the sex scandal but was also facing a further probe into other charges of corruption.

Madan's name figured in the complaint filed by a woman doctor Sunita Malviya, who runs a health clinic in Jodhpur, against the high court Deputy Registrar Govind Kalwani.

Kalwani is alleged to have sought sexual favour for himself and for the judge in settling a court case against Malviya. She also alleged in her written complaint that Kalwani talked to Madan on a mobile phone from her premises to finalise the deal.

The court suspended Kalwani last month after the state's Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a formal case against him.

The three-judge panel had visited Jodhpur early this month and recorded the statements of several persons, including Malviya, Kalwani and Justice Madan, before submitting its report to Pattanaik.

Pattanaik told the Indian Express that the committee of judges indicted Madan, but no action was taken since the panel had also mentioned allegations of corruption against Madan, which warranted further inquiry by the same committee.

Pattanaik, before his retirement, had also summoned Madan to Delhi to tell him about the further inquiry.

Meanwhile, the Rajasthan high court Bar Association on Saturday decided to boycott the court of Justice Madan till his name is cleared from the sex scandal and other cases.

Bar Association President Maneesh Bhandari said the boycott is in vain as the judge has abstained from the court.