Judge’s pavement ultimatum and intemperate letters justify dismissal, Gujarat High Court rules

The petitioner, a Senior Civil Judge transferred to Deesa, was informed that no judicial quarter was available and was required to arrange private accommodation.

She sought permission to stay on the pavement and insisted that accommodation be requisitioned for her; related conduct and letters to the Chief Justice led to three departmental inquiries and charges including indiscipline and insubordination.

The petitioner did not participate in the inquiries despite opportunities, including permission to engage counsel.

The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved; following consideration by the Standing Committee and Full Court, the State Government dismissed her from service.

She challenged the dismissal, principally alleging denial of a fair opportunity to defend herself.

Whether the departmental inquiries and resulting dismissal were vitiated by denial of a fair opportunity to defend herself.

Whether the proved conduct warranted dismissal from judicial service.

A judicial officer must maintain conduct consistent with the dignity and discipline of judicial office.

A judicial quarter is not an entitlement where none is available and a judicial officer may instead receive House Rent Allowance to arrange private accommodation.

Dismissal may be sustained where serious misconduct is established through the inquiry and the employee, despite adequate opportunities, does not participate or avail herself of the chance to defend herself.

The Court held that the petitioner had received multiple opportunities to participate, including the opportunity to engage counsel, but chose not to do so; the inquiry record therefore did not support her claim that she had been denied a fair defence.

It also found the charges supported by the petitioner’s own letters and other oral, documentary and video evidence.

Her demand for requisitioned accommodation, threat to stay on the pavement, and letters concerning a sitting High Court Judge and the Chief Justice were found to demonstrate serious indiscipline and conduct incompatible with judicial office.

It found no ground to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.