Gujarat High Court Upholds Judge's Dismissal For Associating With Practicing Advocate, Accepting Phone From Her

The Gujarat High Court has held that a judicial officer found assoicating/communicating with a practicing advocate, accepting a phone from the latter and using the same would amount to improper conduct. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 268]

In doing so the court upheld the removal of a judicial officer over various charges including the charge that he was in touch with a practicing advocate and communicating with her. 

The development comes in a petition moved by a Judicial Officer challenging his dismissal from service.

The charge framed against the petitioner was that he was collecting amounts ranging from Rs.5,000 to Rs.50,000 for passing favourable orders through his agents. It was alleged that the petitioner had four mobile phones of different makes with different SIM cards, and three out of four mobile phones were found to be owned by a third party.

It was also alleged that he used these mobiles to contact the litigants and settle a bargain. The charge specifically stated that the petitioner was possessing a mobile phone number which was registered in the name of a practicing advocate at Vadodara and was using this mobile number.

It was also alleged that through another mobile phone number, the petitioner had made 6,444 calls in four months, and 188 of these calls were to the lawyer between 25.06.2007 to 08.03.2008. It was alleged that he had accepted the mobile phone by way of illegal gratification from the lawyer, and had, therefore, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.

The Standing Committee of two judges hearing the petitioner's case, affirmed the finding of the Inquiry Officer that there is no evidence that the petitioner was using the mobile phone for demanding and getting bribes from the litigants.

The Committee however concluded that the petitioner's familiarity with an advocate and his making of 186 calls, coupled with the fact that he had received a mobile phone with a SIM card from a practicing advocate, was indicative of his accepting undue favours, and his judicial conduct was improper.

The Committee, therefore, agreed with the Inquiry Officer that this amounted to serious misconduct.

A division bench of Justice NS Sanjay Gowda and Justice JL Odedra observed that the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority was absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of that of a Judicial Officer.

"If a Judicial Officer decides to accept a phone from a practicing advocate and it is established that he was communicating with the practicing advocate over a certain period of time, that, by itself, would be improper. A Judicial Officer should not associate himself with practicing advocates and has to maintain a distance from the advocates to prevent any impression of impropriety.

If the evidence indicated that he had actually secured the phone from a practicing advocate and was using the same, that, by itself, clearly amounts to misconduct. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding on the first charge that it was partly proved cannot be found fault with," the court said. 

The court found that the Full Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was the only appropriate punishment having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, "especially the conduct of possessing multiple mobile phones and communicating with a practicing lady advocate".

The charges, if they are read in conjunction, fundamentally reflects a lack of integrity on the part of the petitioner, who is a Judicial Officer, and therefore, the only punishment that could have been imposed on him was that of dismissal, the bench added and dismissed the petition.