Gujarat HC Upholds Dismissal Of Magistrate For Taking Unauthorized Leave While Alleging 'Rot' In Judicial System

A division bench of Justices Biren Vaishnav and Nisha Thakore held, "Viewing the unauthorized absence of an ordinary employee, may perceive a different perception. Similar standards cannot and should not be applied in case of a Judicial Officer who abandons his service in defiance by addressing a letter to his Principal District Judge that unless a particular issue is not resolved he shall not report for duty.”

“The report of the committee on the administrative side of this court, has therefore, rightly recorded that such a conduct on the part of the delinquent officer is not befitting the Judicial Officer,” the bench added.

The above ruling came in a plea filed by one Nileshbhai Chauhan, a Judicial Magistrate challenging the order of the High Court passed at its administrative side suggesting that the petitioner be dismissed and the order of dismissal by the State Government.

Facts

The petitioner was appointed as Judicial Magistrate, First Class, as per a notification dated 30.12.2005, and officially assumed the role on 05.01.2006 on a two-year probation period. Following confirmation, the petitioner held various postings in different districts.

While on Earned Leave from 24.04.2013 to 10.05.2013, the petitioner became aware of a news article regarding the issuance of certified copies at the behest of Mr. Nalin Patel, President of Vadodara Bar. During this leave, the petitioner informed the Principal District Judge about the matter in person and, asserting the need for resolution, addressed a letter dated 12.06.2013 to the District Judge.

However, the High Court, interpreting the letter as containing intemperate language against the administrative Judge and the Principal District Judge, and noting the petitioner's indication that he would not resume duty until the issue was resolved, issued a charge-sheet on 12.03.2014.

The charges included the petitioner making baseless allegations using undignified language against the administrative judge of the High Court and the concerned Principal District Judge, as well as unauthorized absence from duty during the period from 13.05.2013 to 11.07.2013.

In response to the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted a written statement denying the charges, asserting their misconceived nature. An Inquiry Officer, appointed subsequently, found both charges proven in a report dated 30.12.2014. Following this, a show-cause notice, along with the Inquiry Officer's report, was issued to the petitioner, who responded through a communication dated 13.02.2015.

The High Court, on its administrative side, recommended the petitioner's dismissal from service. On 28.10.2015, an order was issued, dismissing the petitioner from service, prompting the initiation of the present petition challenging the dismissal.

The petitioner placed reliance on the Apex Court's judgement in the case of K.P. Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1994 SC 1031] whereby it was observed that the lower judiciary officers work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure. Every error, however gross it may look, should not therefore, be attributed to improper motive. The judges in the higher courts have also a duty to ensure judicial discipline, however, higher courts must not publicly express lack of faith in subordinate judges.

However, the Registrar General of the High Court argued that given the circumstances of the case, the dismissal penalty was fair and appropriate. Furthermore, it was asserted that the petitioner had a history of using intemperate language and making unfounded allegations in past correspondence.

After reviewing the arguments presented by the counsels for both parties, the Court, in relation to the report from the Inquiry Officer, expressed the view that the charges against the petitioner suggested that the petitioner did not contend that the departmental proceedings were flawed or in breach of principles of natural justice.

Reading the letter dated 12.06.2013 which triggered the episode, the Court opined, “Obviously, a judicial officer may be justified in venting his anguish against the system but in doing so the language used in the letter would indicate that he roped in the administrative judge of the High Court and the District Judge in saying that these elements were encouraging and cooperating in bringing such a systematic decline.”

"The Judicial Officer did not stop here. He further informed the Principal District Judge that as long as the issue was not resolved he would not report for duty. He therefore without applying for leave remained absent for the period from 13.05.2013 to 11.07.2013," the Court added.

The Court said that viewing unauthorized absence of an ordinary employee, may perceive a different perception, however, similar standards cannot and should not be applied in case of a Judicial Officer who abandons his service in defiance by addressing a letter to his Principal District Judge that unless a particular issue is not resolved he shall not report for duty.

The Court held that the report of the committee on the administrative side of this court, had therefore, rightly recorded that such a conduct on the part of the delinquent officer is not befitting the Judicial Officer.

"I have therefore viewed the case in that perception. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate and therefore also it deserves interference on merits and needs reconsideration cannot be accepted," the Court concluded while dismissing the petition.

Appearance: MR KAMLESH B MEHTA(2381) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MAYANK CHAVDA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS TRUSHA K PATEL(2434) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

Case Title: Nileshbhai Chauhan v. Registrar General

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 204

Case No.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4024 of 2016

Click Here To Read Download Judgement