The Gujarat High Court has upheld the dismissal of Senior Civil Judge A. H. Dave, holding that her conduct in threatening to sleep on the pavement over non-allotment of official accommodation, along with her objectionable correspondence concerning senior judges, constituted serious misconduct warranting removal from judicial service.
A Division Bench of Justice N. S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J. L. Odedra, in its October 9 judgment, rejected Dave’s challenge to the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent dismissal order. The Court found that the allegations against her had been established through oral, documentary and video evidence.
The Bench observed that threatening superior judicial officers to secure residential accommodation was incompatible with the standards of discipline and dignity expected from a member of the judiciary.
The Court further held that a judicial officer cannot insist upon government accommodation as an absolute entitlement, particularly when house rent allowance is available as an alternative.
Dispute Over Official Accommodation
The disciplinary proceedings originated from incidents following Dave’s transfer from Vadodara to Deesa in October 2012, where she was posted as the Fourth Additional Senior Civil Judge.
After her transfer, Dave sought official residential accommodation. However, the High Court Registry informed her that judicial quarters were unavailable and that she would have to arrange private accommodation.
Dissatisfied with the response, she sent a fax to the Principal District Judge at Palanpur requesting permission to spend the night on the pavement. She also sought permission to travel daily between Palanpur and Deesa while claiming travelling and daily allowances.
Additionally, she requested that accommodation be arranged through the District Collector.
The matter subsequently became the subject of disciplinary proceedings.
According to the allegations examined during the inquiry, Dave also displayed objectionable conduct during a visit to the District Court complex at Palanpur on November 20, 2012.
On that occasion, judicial officers from Deesa had travelled to Palanpur to exchange New Year greetings. While other officers returned, Dave remained at the court premises until late in the evening.
Other judicial officers reportedly approached her around 9.30 pm and persuaded her to return to Deesa.
The disciplinary charges also concerned her alleged threat to spend the night inside her car outside the Deesa court complex.
Letters Against Senior Judges Led to Further Proceedings
Apart from the accommodation dispute, Dave faced two additional departmental inquiries arising from letters she wrote in 2013.
In a letter dated August 1, 2013, she requested the Chief Justice and other judges of the High Court to recommend the transfer of a sitting High Court judge.
Another letter, dated July 18, 2013, contained language directed against the then Chief Justice that the disciplinary authorities considered inappropriate and discourteous.
The High Court took serious exception to these communications, particularly the demand concerning the transfer of a sitting judge.
The Bench found that such correspondence reflected conduct inconsistent with the discipline expected of a judicial officer.
It also concluded that the language used against the then Chief Justice exceeded acceptable standards of professional courtesy.
Official Quarters Are Not Mandatory in Every Case: High Court
While examining the accommodation-related allegations, the High Court clarified that judicial officers are not necessarily entitled to government-provided residential quarters at every posting.
Where accommodation is unavailable, the authorities may provide house rent allowance, allowing officers to make their own residential arrangements.
The Bench held that Dave could not use threats of sleeping on the pavement as a means of pressuring the judicial administration.
It observed that such conduct would bring the institution into disrepute and undermine the dignity attached to judicial office.
The Court considered her actions during the accommodation dispute sufficiently serious to justify the disciplinary penalty, independently of the other allegations.
The Bench also disapproved of her insistence on securing official quarters through confrontational correspondence rather than making an appropriate request to the authorities.
Court Rejects Allegations of Unfair Departmental Inquiry
Challenging her dismissal, Dave argued that the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice and that she had not received a fair opportunity to defend herself.
The High Court rejected these submissions after examining the manner in which the departmental inquiries had been conducted.
It found that Dave had received opportunities to participate in the proceedings but had repeatedly failed to avail herself of them.
The Court also noted that she had been permitted to engage a lawyer to represent her during the inquiry.
Accordingly, the Bench found no basis to accept her contention that the disciplinary process had deprived her of a reasonable opportunity to present her defence.
The Court further noted that the findings of misconduct were supported by evidence placed before the inquiry authorities, including oral testimony, documents and video material.
Dismissal From Judicial Service Upheld
Following the departmental proceedings, the High Court’s Standing Committee recommended Dave’s dismissal from service.
The Full Court accepted the recommendation in December 2023, following which the state government issued the dismissal order.
While considering her petition, the Division Bench examined both the disciplinary findings and the objections raised against the inquiry process.
It concluded that the misconduct established against Dave justified the punishment imposed upon her.
Finding no grounds to interfere with the disciplinary decision, the Gujarat High Court dismissed her petition and upheld her removal from judicial service.
