The Gujarat High Court has upheld the Dismissal Of Judicial Officer, a Senior Civil Judge, over an accommodation dispute and letters to the Chief Justice, holding that her conduct amounted to serious misconduct.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a Senior Civil Judge challenging her dismissal from judicial service, upholding the punishment imposed after three departmental inquiries over an accommodation dispute at her posting in Deesa and two letters addressed to the then Chief Justice [Asha Harishchandra Dave v. State of Gujarat and Another].
A Division Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra held that the charges stood proved by the petitioner’s own letters and by documentary, oral and video evidence, and that she had chosen to stay away from the inquiries despite repeated opportunities.
The case
By an order dated October 3, 2012, the petitioner was transferred from Vadodara to Deesa as the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge. She asked for a judicial quarter at Deesa and was told on October 11, 2012 that none was available and that she had to arrange private accommodation. Instead, according to the judgment, she faxed a letter to the Principal District Judge, Palanpur, asking to be allowed to spend the night on the pavement, to commute daily from Palanpur with travel and daily allowance, and to have suitable accommodation requisitioned through the Collector.
That led to her suspension and a charge-sheet dated February 26, 2013, which also alleged that she stayed back in the Palanpur district court compound one evening, holding a grudge against the Principal District Judge, and threatened to spend the night in her car in front of the Deesa court complex. Separately, a letter dated July 18, 2013 to the Chief Justice was found by the High Court to use intemperate and undignified language, and a letter dated August 1, 2013 asked the Chief Justice and other judges to recommend the transfer of a sitting High Court judge. Separate inquiries followed, and the Inquiry Officer, the Principal District Judge, Banaskantha, held all charges proved.
The challenge and the defence
On December 20, 2023, the High Court’s Standing Committee recommended dismissal, the Full Court accepted the recommendation the next day, and the State Government issued the dismissal notification. Her counsel, Advocate H.P. Baxi, argued that the inquiries violated the principles of natural justice and that she was not given a fair opportunity to defend herself, relying on Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel, Krishnadatt Awasthy, Yoginath D. Bagde and Saroj Kumar Sinha.
Senior Advocate Gautam Joshi, appearing for the High Court, countered that she had taken every step to prevent the inquiries from proceeding, did not use the permission granted to engage an advocate, and did not deny the charges, which were based on her own letters. He relied on R.C. Chandel v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra.
What the Court said
Writing for the Bench, Justice Sanjay Gowda held that the conduct was clearly unbecoming of a judicial officer. On the pavement letter, the Court said:
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 noted that a judicial officer receives House Rent Allowance where quarters are unavailable and that no rule makes the furnishing of a quarter a “must”. On the request to the Chief Justice to recommend the transfer of a sitting High Court judge, it held:
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 Bench described that request as, on its face, “obnoxious and despicable” and the “highest form of indiscipline” and insubordination. It found that the third inquiry letter used intemperate language against the Chief Justice and went “way beyond the norms of decency”. The contents of the letter are not reproduced here.
ALSO READ: Gujarat High Court Affirms Dismissal of Judge for Unauthorized Leave and Misconduct
Natural justice argument rejected
The Court recorded that she did not participate in any of the three inquiries, sought repeated adjournments, did not engage an advocate despite permission and a panel of legal services lawyers being offered, and declined to sign her plea. Concluding that the charges rested on her own letters, it held:
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.
Finding no reason to interfere, the Bench held the dismissal fully justified and dismissed the writ petition.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates the standard of conduct expected of the judicial service: a judicial officer who has been given House Rent Allowance cannot insist on official quarters, and cannot use threats of public protest or direct appeals to the Chief Justice to press personal demands or the transfer of a sitting judge.
It also shows how seriously the Court treats a delinquent officer’s refusal to participate in a departmental inquiry: where opportunities are repeatedly offered and not used, a later claim of denial of natural justice carries little weight.
Case Title: Asha Harishchandra Dave v. State of Gujarat and Another [R/Special Civil Application No. 16429 of 2025]
Bench: Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra, Gujarat High Court
Date of Judgment: October 9, 2026 (reserved on August 13, 2026)
Appearances: Advocates H.P. Baxi and Shivani R. Modi for the petitioner; Assistant Government Pleader Krishna Desai for the State; Senior Advocate Gautam Joshi with Advocate Hamesh C. Naidu for the High Court