Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement Of Gujarat Judicial Officer, Quashes De Novo Inquiry After First Inquiry Report

The Supreme Court has ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer in Gujarat, holding that she was subjected to an impermissible de novo inquiry in disciplinary proceedings. The Court ruled that once an inquiry report is taken on record, a fresh inquiry cannot be ordered under the applicable Rules, and only a further inquiry is permissible.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the judicial officer's plea against the Gujarat High Court's decision, which refused to halt the de novo inquiry against her, despite the initial inquiry report rejecting the majority of the charges against her, except one relating to willful absenteeism from service.

The appellant, a judicial officer in the Gujarat State Judicial Service, was subjected to departmental proceedings based on multiple allegations, including absenteeism and procedural irregularities.

An inquiry conducted by the Principal District Judge, Amreli, examined 21 witnesses and submitted a report in December 2023, concluding that only one charge (habitual absenteeism) was proved, and seven other charges were not proved.

Despite this, the Disciplinary Authority (High Court's Standing Committee) issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the findings and ordered a de novo inquiry in May 2024.

The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court, which dismissed her plea, leading to the present appeal.

Setting aside the impugned order, the Court referred to Rule 10 of the Gujarat Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002, which bars the conduct of a de novo / fresh inquiry against a civil servant.

“The High Court erred in not appreciating that the notice…issued by the Disciplinary Authority directing a de novo inquiry was not permissible in view of the mandate contained in Rule 10 of the Rules.”, the court said.

For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant and to grant her all consequential benefits.

The appeal was allowed.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 420

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hetvi Ketan Patel, Adv. Mr. Tanveer Alil, Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vishakha, AOR Mr. Naman Vashishtha, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Raj Sahay, Adv.