Judicial Officer Can't Demand Transfer Of Sitting HC Judge, Threaten To Sleep On Footpath If Suitable House Is Not Given: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that a judicial officer cannot call upon the Chief Justice to transfer a sitting high court judge or threaten Principal District Judge to sleep on the pavement if a suitable accommodation was not provided, and that such conduct amounts to misconduct liable for dismissal from service.  

In doing so the court upheld a 2023 decision terminating a judicial officer from service pursuant to recommendation of the Standing Committee which was placed before the Full Court of the High Court which had on 21.12.2023, resolved to accept the recommendation and decided to impose the punishment of Standing Committee and place the matter before the Government.

The Government accepted this recommendation of the Full Court and proceeded to issue a notification dismissing the petitioner from service. 

A division bench of Justice NS Sanjay Gowda and Justice JL Odedra said that the conduct of the petitioner in addressing a letter to the Principal District Judge seeking permission to spend the night on the pavement and making a demand that appropriate accommodation should be provided to her by directing the Collector to requisition the same, amounts to serious misconduct and would be sufficient to dismiss her from service. 

"The said allegations have, in fact, not been explicitly denied and these charges have, in fact, been proved by both oral documentary and video-graphic evidence.

If a Judicial Officer decides to threaten the Principal District Judge and threaten to sleep on the pavement if a suitable accommodation was not provided, this conduct would basically be one which would be mocking the entire judiciary and showing the Institution itself in a poor light. In our view, such a conduct, which is not in dispute, renders a Judicial Officer incapable of holding a judicial office and she cannot be permitted to continue inservice," the court said.

The court also noted that the Judicial Officer was provided with a House Rent Allowance (HRA) in case quarters are not available to enable the judicial officer to avail of a private rented accommodation. The court said that there was  no rule which mandated that furnishing of a quarter to a judicial officer is a 'must'.

"The further conduct of the petitioner in addressing a letter calling upon the Chief Justice and other Judges to make a recommendation to transfer a sitting Judge is, on the face of it, obnoxious and despicable. A Senior Civil Judge cannot by any stretch of imagination, address a letter to the Chief Justice and call upon the Chief Justice to make a recommendation for transferring a sittingJudge of the High Court. This conduct is proof of the poor character of the petitioner and also establishes that she is incapable of holding a judicial office. The act of the petitioner, a judicial officer, to call upon the Chief Justice to make a recommendation of a sitting judge of the High Court, would clearly constitute the highest form of indiscipline and also insubordination, which would disentitle her to be a judicial officer," the court said. 

The court also noted that the petitioner had also written a letter making "obnoxious allegations against the Chief Justice" observing that the contents of the letter indicate that the petitioner was not only irrational but had gone way beyond the norms of decency in addressing a letter using intemperate language against the Chief Justice.

"In our view, having regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner, which cannot be in dispute, given the fact that they are based on the letters addressed by the petitioner herself, the orders of dismissal were fully justified. The fact that the petitioner did not choose to avail multiple opportunities to defend herself and chose to stay away from the inquiry proceedings also disentitle the petitioner of any relief," the court added. 

The plea was dismissed.