JUDGMENT :

N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.

1. The petitioner, a serving Additional District Judge, has filed this petition seeking for quashing of the departmental inquiry that has been initiated against him. He has also made the prayers for reinstatement, transfer of inquiry to a Senior Judge and also for quashing of the order of suspension.

2. By way of an amendment, he has also challenged the order of the Hon’ble Judge who has rejected his prayer for discharging or dropping the inquiry initiated against him.

3. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this petition are as follows:

i. On 16.12.2024, the petitioner was placed under suspension in view of a contemplated departmental proceeding against him.

ii. On 25.1.2025, a charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner in which 6 charges were laid against him. In these 6 charges, it is alleged that the petitioner had developed intimate relations with an outsourced clerk and had also extended financial help to her and had also utilized the services of the court employees to assist her in her business venture.

iii. It is also alleged that he had obstructed the functioning of the CCTV camera by getting it blocked and that he failed to maintain regularity in holding his sitting and he was also found using his mobile phone and engaging in prayers while presiding over the Court.

iv. A charge is also levelled against him that he had threatened the peons to withdraw their statements recorded by the President, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad.

v. The order of suspension that had been passed against him had been challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.124 of 2025.

vi. On 14.2.2025, i.e. 2 weeks after the charge-sheet was laid, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition that he had filed before the Supreme Court with liberty to take such action as was permissible in law.

vii. On 12.3.2025, the petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet whereby he denied the allegations made against him and also sought for dropping of the proceedings.

viii. Pursuant to the charge-sheet and the reply, the inquiry was conducted by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In this departmental proceeding, the petitioner made an application for change of the inquiry officer. This application was rejected on 19.9.2025.

ix. An application was thereafter made for stay of the department proceedings until final disposal of his transfer application.

x. On 30.9.2025, one more application was filed for dropping of the inquiry on ground that no complaint had been made against him along with a sworn affidavit.

xi. The learned Single Judge conducting the inquiry rejected the said application and scheduled the inquiry to be conducted on 13.10.2025 for recording of evidence.

xii. On 13.10.2025, an application was filed for supply of the daily order-sheets.

xiii. On 7.11.2025, the petitioner made several applications/ memorandums raising several contentions regarding the improper manner in which the inquiry was being conducted.

xiv. On 20.11.2025, Abhishek J. Rathod, a witness, filed a complaint before the learned Single Judge alleging that he had been threatened by the petitioner and that he should be granted protection.

xv. On that day, the petitioner made an application for grant of an adjournment, citing the length of the proceedings. The learned Single Judge also took note of the complaint made by Abhishek J. Rathod and ultimately adjourned to the matter to 2.12.2025 and also stating that the Presenting Officer should render assistance to ensure that the witness was safely dropped to ISCON Cross Road so that he could proceed to Jamnagar.

xvi. It appears that the petitioner also approached the Supreme Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.12 of 2026 seeking for quashing of the departmental inquiry and also for transferring of the inquiry to an independent and impartial Senior Judge or to any other Judge of any High Court other than the Gujara