Judicial officers must maintain integrity and decorum; misconduct undermining public confidence is serious, but not all charges may warrant maximum punishment.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The petitioner was a Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, by this captioned petition has invoked supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14, 16, 235 and 311, assailing the order dated 09.08.2016 terminating the petitioner from his services as Judicial Officer. The writ applicant has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondents to pay salary and all service benefits by treating it as a case of no order of suspension or dismissal. It is also prayed to quash and set aside the award of punishment of dismissal right from inception and to grant all consequential service benefits, as if the petitioner was not terminated. Pending this petition, the prayer was sought to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order of termination dated 09.08.2016 and to permit him to join the services with all benefits, which is otherwise not granted by this Court.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the relevant facts in brief are summarized as under:

2.1 On 11.03.2005, the writ applicant was appointed as a Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the High Court inviting application for the aforesaid post. The first appointment of the petitioner was at Amreli Court, where he worked for nearly two years up to 01.04.2007. From 02.04.2007, the petitioner was transferred to Shinor Court where he joined as a Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class and worked till 29.01.2009. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bhachau at the aforesaid post and worked till 30.05.2011 and was later on transferred to Muli Court in Surendranagar District.

2.2 While he was posted at Muli Court, the High Court on its administrative side, had issued an order on 03.04.2012 suspending the petitioner. On 23.05.2012, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for the alleged misconduct, which according to him was triable in nature. Responding to such allegations, the petitioner had filed a reply on 03.09.2012, which was addressed to the High Court through the learned Principal District Judge, Surendranagar.

2.3 During inquiry, the deposition of the petitioner and the written arguments followed by written submissions in the form of further statement were tendered. Pending the aforesaid inquiry, the petitioner came to be transferred to Vadodara District. The headquarters was fixed at Vadodara District and the inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer Mr. K.K. Bhatt, District Judge, Vadodara District, which was subsequently transferred to Shri. M.A. Shaikh, the Additional District Judge, Vadodara and was numbered as Departmental Inquiry No.1 of 2012.

2.4 The Inquiry Officer had assigned findings and reasons, thereby holding charge no. I (part-1), II, III, IV, V, VII, part of VIII, IX, X, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX as proved. The report was submitted before disciplinary authority on 21.05.2014 and the report was examined by the High Court and a show cause notice dated 27.08.2014 was issued upon the petitioner calling upon him as to why the punishment as prescribed under rule 6 of the Gujarat (Disciplines and Appeal) Rules, 1971, may not be imposed should not be taken for the charges proved against the petitioner.

2.5 The petitioner had tendered a comprehensive reply along with the list of authorities on 14.11.2014. The Committee of the High Court took into consideration the inquiry report and decided to pass the order of dismissal on 02.09.2016. From the analysis of the charges proved, the committee arrived at the conclusion that the act of the delinquent was unbecoming of the judicial officer and therefore recommended maximum punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil services Rules ( Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1971. The State Government, considering the aforesaid decision of the High Court, issued notification on 09.08.