High Court Can Initiate Disciplinary Inquiry Against Judicial Officer Without Formal Complaint Or Affidavit: Gujarat High Court
The Court held that statutory power of disciplinary authority cannot be curtailed by administrative guidelines meant for litigant complaints against judges.
Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda, Justice J. L. Odedra, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer can be initiated by the High Court on the basis of information received by it, even in the absence of a written complaint supported by an affidavit or verifiable material. The Court clarified that the statutory power of the disciplinary authority under the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 cannot be diluted by administrative guidelines framed for dealing with complaints made by litigants against subordinate judicial officers.
The Court further observed that requiring a formal complaint with an affidavit in every case would impermissibly fetter the disciplinary authority’s statutory discretion to maintain institutional discipline. It also held that allegations made by a serving judicial officer against a senior judge of the High Court, suggesting influence over junior judges, prima facie amounted to criminal contempt as they tended to scandalise the institution and lower public confidence in the judiciary.
A Division Bench comprising Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J. L. Odedra was dealing with a petition filed by a serving Additional District Judge seeking quashing of departmental proceedings initiated against him, along with a challenge to his suspension and certain interlocutory orders passed during the inquiry. It observed, “…It cannot be forgotten that the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the judicial officer is the High Court headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice… the highest judicial body is conferred with the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of an alleged misconduct of a judicial officer and this power is an independent and absolute power and cannot be subjected to the requirement of any complaint and an affidavit in support of the complaint”.
Senior Advocate Percy Kavina appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Gautam Joshi appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner had been served with a charge-sheet alleging, among other things, inappropriate conduct with an outsourced clerk, misuse of court staff for personal purposes, obstruction of CCTV functioning, irregular court sittings, and intimidation of witnesses. He contended that the inquiry was void because no written complaint supported by a sworn affidavit had been lodged against him, relying upon Ministry of Law and Justice guidelines and an earlier Division Bench decision.
Rejecting the contention, the Court held that Rule 9(2) of the 1971 Rules only requires the disciplinary authority to form an opinion that grounds exist for inquiry into alleged misconduct. It observed that the source of information was immaterial so long as the disciplinary authority had sufficient basis to form such an opinion.
“It is to be stated here that there are vast number of complaints being lodged against the judicial officers of the trial courts raising all kinds of grievances regarding the judicial officers. In most of the cases, the complaint is by a disgruntled litigant who has suffered an adverse order or by a litigant who wants to pressurize the judicial officers by making false allegations. It is in this context that the guidelines came to be issued making it mandatory for the litigant to file a complaint against the judicial officers to give a sworn affidavit in support of the complaint and also produce verifiable material. This requirement is to ensure that the complainant is held accountable if it is found that the allegations are false or misconceived”, it observed.
“This requirement, issued in the form of a guideline, in relation to complaints by litigants against the judicial officers will have no application whatsoever in respect of the cases where the Disciplinary Authority has formed an opinion that there are good and sufficient reasons to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against a judicial officer”, it further noted.
The Bench distinguished the earlier judgment relied upon by the petitioner and clarified that the guidelines regarding affidavits were intended to prevent frivolous complaints by disgruntled litigants, not to restrict the High Court’s independent disciplinary jurisdiction under Article 235 of the Constitution.
The Court also took serious note of written submissions personally filed by the petitioner after judgment was reserved, wherein he alleged that a senior judge exercised control over junior judges of the High Court. Holding that such assertions prima facie constituted criminal contempt, the Bench directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate Division Bench dealing with contempt matters for further consideration.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with directions to place the contempt aspect before the roster Bench and requiring the petitioner’s personal presence on the next date of hearing.
Cause Title: XYZ v. High Court of Gujarat Through Registrar General (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:32318-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Percy Kavina, Senior Advocate, Bhargav Hasurkar, Advocate.
Respondent: Gautam Joshi, Senior Advocate, Vikas V. Nair, Advocate.