Gujarat High Court: In a matter concerning charges of corruption against an Additional Senior Civil Judge, a Division Bench comprising of A.S. Supehia, J* and R.T. Vachhani, J. partly quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and held that, the order of dismissal was not based on any legally admissible evidence and rests entirely on the ipse-dixit, conjectures, and surmises of the Disciplinary Authority.
Background
In the instant case, the petitioner was serving as Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), and was issued a chargesheet, accusing him of dereliction of duty; indulging in corrupt practices; committing the aforesaid acts of misconduct; and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. These imputations were based on alleged favouring of plaintiffs in a Special Civil Suit.
The departmental proceedings arose out of the judicial orders passed by the petitioner in the said civil suit wherein, a criminal complaint was filed by, Manager of Jay Ambica Oil Carriers- Contractor of Essar Oil Ltd., before JMFC, who forwarded the said complaint to Police Sub-Inspector, for inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The complaint pertained to the illegal detention of two tankers, which were transporting diesel for Essar Oil Ltd. It was alleged that mischief had been committed during transportation by the drivers of both tankers, who absconded after leaving the vehicles at the depot. The complaint was filed against the tanker owners and drivers for shortage of high-speed diesel entrusted for transportation.
The owners (plaintiffs) of the two tankers instituted the said Special Civil Suit before the petitioner’s Court, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction for release of the detained tankers against Essar Oil Ltd. The petitioner granted an ex-parte mandatory injunction and issued a notice to the defendant – Essar Oil Ltd., to show cause as to why the said injunction should not be made absolute. The said temporary mandatory injunction restrained the company and its employees from obstructing the plaintiffs from removing the subject tankers from the custody of the company.
The partner of Jay Ambica Oil Carriers, and contractor of Essar Oil Ltd, filed an impleadment application, as a party in the suit, which was initially kept pending by the petitioner but was later rejected.
The plaintiffs sought action against the office-bearers, of Essar Oil Ltd. for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by the Court in which the petitioner passed an order directing the respondent-Company to hand over possession of the tankers to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs.
It was alleged that the petitioner compelled the respondent company to hand over possession of the tankers to the plaintiffs, and thereby openly assisted the plaintiffs in obtaining possession of the seized tankers, involved in the commission of a crime of theft of high speed diesel and that the petitioner, for ulterior motive, did not pass any order in the impleadment application for joining party.
In the light of the said allegations, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report to the Registrar (Law and Inquiry), High Court of Gujarat. The report found the petitioner guilty of only two charges. The High Court disagreed with the findings of report with respect to those charges of which the petitioner was relieved and thus, issued him a show-cause notice.
The petitioner was dismissed from service vide notification issued by the legal department on the recommendation of the High Court.
Aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioner approached the Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court observed that there is not even a speck of evidence on record in the entire disciplinary proceedings to suggest that the petitioner has, for extraneous consideration or for any personal benefit, passed the orders in the said civil suit and that no material has surfaced on record to establish that the petitioner indulged in corrupt practice or acted with an intent to favour the plaintiffs, or that he compelled the defendant— Company to hand over the tankers detained in their depot to the plaintiffs. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the tankers were in the custody of the police, nor is there any proof to indicate that the petitioner was aware of such custody pursuant to the filing of a criminal complaint.
It was noted that the impleadment application was also not challenged by any party and the same was categorically recorded as just and proper order by the inquiry officer.
It was also observed that there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner compelled to part with possession of the vehicles and hence, the said order was not challenged by any of the parties to the suit and the civil suit was withdrawn unconditionally.
The Court, relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in P.C. Joshi v State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 491] and held that the impugned order of dismissal is not founded on any legally admissible evidence and rests entirely on the ipse dixit, conjectures, and surmises of the Disciplinary Authority. Unless there are clear-cut allegations of “misconduct”, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind, etc., disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the judicial officer or merely on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect, or the judicial officer has been negligent in ignoring any fact. Any ‘probability’ of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material.
The Court declared that the disciplinary proceedings initiated and concluded pursuant to the chargesheet dated 23-10-2008 against the petitioner were unfair and unjust. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the Notification dated 06-05-2011, whereby the punishment of dismissal was imposed under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the dismissal order dated 6-5-2011, being unjust and unsupported by evidence and directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service within six weeks, subject to the order which shall be passed in another departmental inquiry which stands revived from the stage at which it was kept it abeyance, by the instant order of reinstatement.
[M.J Indrekar v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 2651, decided on 9-7-2025]
*Judgement authored by:Justice A.S. Supehia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners- Vaibhav A. Vyas, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents- Shruti R. Dhruve, AGP; PR Abichandani, Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
