The Gujarat High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an Additional District Judge challenging a departmental inquiry, while directing that papers be placed before the Bench assigned contempt matters over assertions made against a senior High Court judge.
The Gujarat High Court has recommended initiation of contempt proceedings against a serving Additional District Judge over statements made in written submissions against a senior High Court judge.
A Division Bench of Justice NS Sanjay Gowda and Justice JL Odedra observed that the statements scandalised the Court and lowered its authority. The Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Division Bench handling contempt matters for further action, if considered appropriate.
The case was titled X v/s High Court of Gujarat Through Registrar General.
Court Examined Conduct After Reserving Judgment
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the judicial officer challenging a departmental inquiry initiated against him over allegations of misconduct.
While dismissing the petition, the Bench observed that the matter would ordinarily have ended there. However, the Court found it necessary to examine the petitioner’s conduct after reserving judgment.
The Court noted that it had reserved judgment on 15 April 2026 after hearing senior counsels appearing for both sides.
During the hearing, the Bench noticed references to two writ petitions filed before the Supreme Court. However, the pleadings did not disclose the prayers sought in those petitions.
The Court therefore asked the petitioner’s Senior Counsel to provide copies of the Supreme Court petitions.
Petitioner Submitted Affidavit Directly
The Bench noted that the petitioner bypassed both his advocate-on-record and the Senior Counsel who argued the matter.
Instead, the petitioner directly submitted written submissions before the Court Master along with copies of the Supreme Court petitions.
The written submissions carried only the petitioner’s signature and were supported by his affidavit.
The Court observed that the petitioner, being a serving Additional District Judge, had personally affirmed the correctness of the statements made in the affidavit.
Court Says Statements Amount To Criminal Contempt
Referring to paragraph 2 of the written submissions, the Bench observed that the petitioner alleged that a senior High Court judge exercised control over all branches of the High Court and could direct junior judges.
According to the Court, these allegations sought to scandalise the institution.
The Bench held that such statements by a serving judicial officer clearly lowered the authority of the Court. It further observed that the allegations interfered with judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice.
The Court held that the assertions “clearly constitute a criminal contempt.”
Matter Referred To Contempt Bench
The Division Bench directed that the papers relating to the alleged criminal contempt be placed before the Bench assigned to hear contempt matters.
The Court dismissed the writ petition while directing that the matter be placed before the appropriate Bench for considering contempt proceedings.
The Bench also directed the petitioner to remain personally present before the concerned Division Bench on 15 June 2026.
Judicial Officer Had Challenged Departmental Inquiry
In the main petition, the judicial officer sought quashing of the departmental inquiry initiated against him.
He also sought reinstatement, transfer of the inquiry to a Senior Judge, and quashing of his suspension order.
The petitioner argued that authorities could not initiate a departmental inquiry without a written complaint, sworn affidavit, and verifiable material.
High Court Rejects Challenge To Inquiry
The Gujarat High Court rejected the contention.
The Bench held that the disciplinary authority could initiate an inquiry after forming an opinion based on available information. According to the Court, the law does not require a written complaint or sworn affidavit in every case.
The Court observed that imposing such a requirement would run contrary to the statutory rules governing disciplinary proceedings.
The Bench further clarified that authorities could form an opinion based on information received from different sources.
Court Refuses To Interfere Over Allegedly Vague Charges
The petitioner also argued that the charges framed against him were vague and therefore the inquiry should be quashed.
The Court rejected this argument as well.
The Bench held that the petitioner could raise objections regarding vagueness before the Inquiry Officer. If necessary, he could later raise the issue before the disciplinary authority.
The Court clarified that it would not examine such factual issues while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 at a stage when the inquiry was already underway.
Petition Dismissed
Finally, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court also directed that the papers relating to the alleged contemptuous statements be placed before the Bench handling contempt matters.
The matter will now come up before the concerned Division Bench on 15 June 2026.
