Gujarat High Court

Nileshbhai Khusalbhai Chauhan vs Registrar General on 18 December, 2023

Author: Biren Vaishnav

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




    C/SCA/4024/2016                              CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

                                                                                    undefined




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4024 of 2016


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                      NILESHBHAI KHUSALBHAI CHAUHAN
                                   Versus
                       REGISTRAR GENERAL & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
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
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
          and
          HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                       Date : 18/12/2023
                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged

the impugned order of the High Court on its

administrative side recommending that the

petitioner be dismissed and the dismissal order

passed by the State Government.

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The petitioner was selected as Judicial

Magistrate, First Class by a notification dated

30.12.2005. He was appointed on 05.01.2006 on

probation for a period of two years whereafter he

was confirmed and was posted in various districts.

The petitioner was on Earned Leave for the period

from 24.04.2013 to 10.05.2013 and according to the

petitioner during such period, a news item appeared

regarding issue of certified copies published at the

instance of one Mr. Nalin Patel, President of

Vadodara Bar. While on leave, therefore, he brought

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

it to the notice of the Principal District Judge and

personally met him. It is the case of the petitioner

that narrating the entire episode, he addressed a

letter dated 12.06.2013 to the District Judge. Taking

this letter as a letter using intemperate language

against the concerned administrative Judge and the

Principal District Judge and because the letter

indicated that unless and until the issue is resolved,

the petitioner will not report for duty, the High

Court on the administrative side on 12.03.2014

issued a charge-sheet.

2.2 Two charges were levelled against the

petitioner namely (1) that the petitioner had made

baseless allegations against the administrative judge

of the high Court and the concerned Principal

District Judge using undignified language and (2)

unauthorized absence from duty for the period from

13.05.2013 to 11.07.2013.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

2.3 In response to the charge-sheet the petitioner

responded by filing a written statement denying the

charges and submitting that the charges were

misconceived. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who

by his report dated 30.12.2014 held both the

charges as proved. A show-cause notice together

with the Inquiry Officer's report was issued to the

petitioner to which the petitioner responded by a

communication dated 13.02.2015. The High Court

on its administrative side recommended his

dismissal from service and by an order dated

28.10.2015 the petitioner was dismissed from

service which is the subject matter of challenge in

this petition.

3. Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for the

petitioner would make the following submissions:

3.1 That the letter dated 12.06.2013 only indicated

the anguish of the petitioner to the extent that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

lawyers were proceeding on strike despite a

judgement of the Apex Court. The letter nowhere

indicated any use of any intemperate or undignified

language and therefore could not have been made

an issue so as to warrant a charge-sheet.

3.2 That it was with an intention to uphold the

dignity of judicial institutions that the petitioner

requested the District Judge to resolve the issue and

till such an amicable resolution is arrived at, he

chose to remain absent. It could not be termed as

unauthorized absence.

3.3 That the entire narrative, if appreciated in true

spirit of the letter dated 12.06.2013, would indicate

that redressal of a genuine issue was sought

whereas the District Judge threatened the petitioner

to give an adverse report to the High Court.

3.4 That the entire service record of the petitioner

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

would indicate that there was not a single allegation

of corruption or misconduct otherwise. She would

rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of K.P. Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

[AIR 1994 SC 1031] and submit that the Hon'ble

Apex Court had 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.

3.5 That the explanation tendered by the petitioner

ought to have been accepted inasmuch as the

absence could not be said to be purposeful and the

petitioner being an honest judicial officer atleast on

the doctrine of proportionality the punishment of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. In

support of her submission, she would rely on the

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others

[(1995) 6 SCC 749] and in the case of Chairman

cum Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and

Others vs. Mukund Kumar Chaudhary and

others [(2009) 15 SCC 620].

4. Ms. Trusha Patel, learned advocate appearing

for respondent no. 1 would submit that in the

circumstances of the case, the penalty of dismissal

was just and proper. Even in the past, the petitioner

has been in the habit of addressing letters using

intemperate language and making baseless

allegations. Reading the letter dated 12.06.2013,

she would submit that it was highly unbecoming of a

judicial officer to abandon his duties which would

tantamount to going on strike.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

4.1 Ms. Patel would invite the court's attention to a

response filed by the petitioner to the charge-sheet

and indicate that the petitioner continued to use

intemperate language by branding the issuance of a

charge-sheet as a design.

4.2 Reading the Inquiry Officer's report, Ms. Patel

would submit that based on the evidence on record,

the charges are proved on the basis of

preponderence of probabilities and therefore this

court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India should not interfere with the

order.

4.3 Ms. Patel would invite the court's attention to

the report dated 13.07.2015 of the Committee where

the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing

wherein after having admitted the charges, the

committee had observed that the conduct on the

part of the delinquent officer does not befit a judicial

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

officer.

5. Having considered the submissions made by

the learned counsels for the respective parties, at

the outset, this court is conscious of the fact that in

the case of judicial review in matters of disciplinary

proceedings where the charge has been proved on

the basis of preponderence of probabilities, the

court should be loathe in interfering. Proceeding to

examine the Inquiry Officer's report in light of the

charges levelled against the petitioner would

indicate that it is not even the case of the petitioner

that the departmental proceedings were defective

and/or in violation of principles of natural justice.

Keeping this in mind, we proceed further to examine

the legality and validity of the order of dismissal.

6. Reading the letter dated 12.06.2013 which

triggered the episode indicates that the petitioner

addressed a letter to the District Judge raising

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

grievances against the President of the District Bar

Association. It is his case that the Bar proceeded on

strike without a just cause and in violation of the

decision of the Apex Court. Thus far and no further,

the conduct of a Judicial Officer could not be a

matter of scrutiny as an officer of the judiciary, but

the matter would not rest here. The Judicial Officer

concerned, i.e. the petitioner herein in the letter so

addressed expressed an opinion that the whole

judicial system was facing a rot by virtue of such

elements in the Bar and the concerned

administrative judge of the High Court as well as the

Principal District Judge tantamounts to directly or

indirectly helping the system in encouraging setting

in a systematic destruction of the judicial system.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

elements were encouraging and cooperating in

bringing such a systematic decline.

6.1 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. It will be in the fitness of

things to quote the findings of the Inquiry Officer in

context of the misconduct so reflected in the

behaviour of a judicial officer.

"Even assuming that the delinquent was depressed due to family disputes, he could have, as a judicial officer, avoided the intemperate language in the letter and while penning the letter, the control over the language should not have been forgotten and ought to have had made a committed comprehensive endeavour to control the baseless allegations made in the letter. The delinquent being a Judicial Officer, the decision making process expected from him to apply restraint, ostracize perceptual subjectivity, make his emotions subservient to his reasoning and think dispassionately. He is expected to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

guided by the established norms of judicial process and decorum. ... A judge is required to remember the humility and respect for temperance and chastity of thought are to be bedrock of apposite expression. In that context the rhetoric becomes sans reasons and without root. It is likely to blinden the thinking process."

6.2 In context of the petitioner abandoning his service,

the Inquiry Officer observed as under:

"The aforesaid act of the delinquent shows the intention of the delinquent to desert from service and go on leave unauthorizedly. The intention of the delinquent was to go on strike which is clear from his letter dated 12.06.2013 and when an employee intentionally absents himself from a duty, the same would amount to unauthorized leave."

7. Viewing 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4024/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023

undefined

administrative side of this court, has therefore, rightly

recorded that such a conduct on the part of the