Judicial officers cannot face disciplinary actions solely for issuing wrong orders; such actions require clear evidence of corruption or misconduct, not mere assumptions.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed assailing the Notification dated 06.05.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 on the basis of the recommendation made by the respondent No.2-Gujarat High Court, imposing the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner under the provision of Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971.

BRIEF FACTS :-

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in 1996. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2005. A charge-sheet dated 23.10.2008 was issued to the petitioner, while he was serving as an Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anjar, Gandhidham, District Kachchh at Bhuj inter alia alleging that the petitioner had granted an ex-parte mandatory injunction on 27.08.2007 to the plaintiffs (owners of the tankers) of Special Civil Suit No.46 of 2007 despite being fully aware that a criminal complaint filed by one Mr.Rajesh Satyanarayan Chaudhary, Manager of Jay Ambica Oil Carriers, regarding the theft of oil from two tankers involving such tankers, was pending. It was further alleged that the petitioner ignored an application (at Exh.14), filed by Mr.Vivek K. Ramchandani, Partner of M/s. Jay Ambica Oil Carriers, seeking to be joined as a party respondent, and instead, he compelled the defendant of Special Civil Suit No.46 of 2007, i.e., Essar Oil Limited, to hand over possession of the tankers to the plaintiffs, vide order dated 10.09.2007 passed below Exh.19. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner has committed corrupt practice and dereliction of his duty, which tantamount to grave misconduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, in violation of the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971.

3. The charge sheet stems out from a complaint allegedly made by complainant - Mr.Rajesh Satyanarayan Chaudhary, Manager of M/s.Jay Ambica Oil Carriers, who was a contractor engaged by the Essar Company for transporting the oil.

4. A regular Departmental Inquiry (being D.I. No.13 of 2008) was conducted. After holding the Departmental Inquiry, a report dated 31.05.2010 was submitted to the respondent no.1-Gujarat High Court. Interestingly, the Inquiry Officer divided the statement of imputations into four charges, giving his independent findings to each of them:

Charge No.1, as carved out by the Inquiry Officer from the charge-sheet, relates to passing of an ex-parte mandatory interim injunction order dated 27.08.2007 in favour of the plaintiffs (truck owners) by adopting corrupt practice is proved.

Charge No.4, is interconnected to the Charge No.1, however, the Inquiry Officer has split the same. It is proved that the petitioner assisted the plaintiffs in obtaining possession of the tankers through an unreasoned and casually passed ex-parte ad-interim relief order.

However, Charges No.2 and 3 were not held to be proved.

Charge No.2, independently framed by the Inquiry Officer, pertained to the application (Exh.14) filed by Mr.Vivek K. Ramchandani, Partner of Jay Ambica Oil Carriers for impleading him as a party respondent. The Inquiry Officer held that the order dated 19.09.2007 passed below Exh.14 by the present petitioner dismissing the application for joining party was correct because there was no dispute regarding ownership of the vehicles and no damage or compensation was claimed but, the suit was mainly filed for such declaration against the illega