The Gujarat High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Senior Civil Judge, Asha Harishchandra Dave, for misconduct that included threatening to sleep on the pavement if government accommodation was not provided, demanding the transfer of a sitting High Court judge, and using intemperate language against the Chief Justice. The division bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra rejected the petition challenging the 2023 order of dismissal , finding that the conduct was "clearly unbecoming of a Judicial Officer " and rendered her incapable of holding judicial office.

Threatening to Sleep on Pavement

The case arose after Dave was transferred from Vadodara to Deesa as the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge in October 2012. When informed that no judicial quarters were available and that she would need to arrange private accommodation, she sent a fax to the Principal District Judge, Palanpur, requesting permission to spend the night on the pavement and demanding that the Collector be directed to requisition suitable accommodation. She also insisted that she be allowed to commute daily from Palanpur to Deesa with travelling allowance until accommodation was arranged.

The High Court noted that judicial officers are provided with House Rent Allowance when quarters are not available, and that "there is no rule which mandates that furnishing of a quarter to a judicial officer is a 'must'." The court observed that the petitioner's threat to sleep on the pavement if accommodation was not provided was a serious misconduct that mocked the entire judiciary. "If a Judicial Officer decides to threaten the Principal District Judge and threaten to sleep on the pavement if a suitable accommodation was not provided, this conduct would basically be one which would be mocking the entire judiciary and showing the Institution itself in a poor light," the court held.

Letter Demanding Transfer of Judge

Further, Dave addressed a letter dated 1 August 2013 to the High Court through the Registrar General, calling upon the Chief Justice and other judges to use their power to recommend the transfer of a sitting judge of the High Court. The court described this act as " obnoxious and despicable ." It stated that a Senior Civil Judge "cannot by any stretch of imagination, address a letter to the Chief Justice and call upon the Chief Justice to make a recommendation for transferring a sitting Judge of the High Court." The court found this conduct proof of " poor character " and concluded that it constituted "the highest form of indiscipline and also insubordination ."

A third charge related to a letter addressed to the Chief Justice containing what the court termed "obnoxious allegations" and " intemperate language ." The bench observed that the letter indicated the petitioner was "not only irrational but had gone way beyond the norms of decency."

Inquiry and Dismissal

Three separate departmental inquiries were initiated against Dave. Throughout the proceedings, she refused to participate, instead filing numerous applications seeking adjournments, a personal meeting with the Chief Justice, and transfer of the inquiry officer. Permission to engage an advocate was granted, but she rejected the panel of pro bono lawyers offered by the District Legal Services Authority, stating that none was competent. The inquiry officer ultimately appointed a lawyer from the panel, which Dave refused to accept.

The inquiry reports found all charges proved based on oral, documentary, and video-graphic evidence. The Standing Committee recommended dismissal, and the Full Court accepted the recommendation on 21 December 2023. The State Government issued the notification of dismissal.

Court Upholds Dismissal

Challenging the dismissal , Dave argued that the inquiry violated principles of natural justice and that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to defend herself . The court rejected these submissions, noting that she had availed multiple extensions and opportunities but chose not to participate. "The fact that the petitioner did not choose to avail multiple opportunities to defend herself and chose to stay away from the inquiry proceedings also disentitle the petitioner of any relief," the court observed.

The bench also noted that the charges were based on letters written by Dave herself and were not explicitly denied. The court found that the allegations had been proved through oral, documentary, and video evidence. The dismissal was fully justified given the gravity of the misconduct.

The petition was dismissed, and the order of dismissal from service was upheld.