Holding

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the departmental inquiry was valid and the petitioner’s statements amounted to contempt of court.

Summary

The petitioner, an Additional District Judge, sought to quash a departmental inquiry and his suspension, alleging that the inquiry violated Ministry of Law and Justice guidelines requiring a complaint with an affidavit. The High Court examined whether the disciplinary authority could initiate an inquiry without such a complaint and held that the statutory rules empower the authority to act on any information forming a ‘good and sufficient’ opinion, rendering the guideline inapplicable. The Court also considered the petitioner’s written submission accusing a senior High Court judge of undue control, finding the statements scandalous and contemptuous. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the contempt matter was referred to the Division Bench. The judgment affirmed the validity of the departmental proceedings and ordered the petitioner to appear before the contempt bench.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner can challenge the initiation of a departmental inquiry and the laying of a charge‑sheet on the ground that it violates the Ministry of Law and Justice guidelines dated 31.12.2014.
Whether the statements made in paragraph 2 of the petitioner’s written submission constitute contempt of court and merit contempt proceedings.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 234, s. Article 235, s. Article 309, s. Article 32

Subjects

departmental inquiryjudicial officercontempt of courtGujarat Judicial Service Rulesdisciplinary proceedingscharge‑sheethigh courtscandalising the court

Judgment

C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

Reserved On : 15/04/2026
Pronounced On : 08/05/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5112 of 2026
==========================================================
GIRISHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SONI
Versus
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PERCY KAVINA, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR BHARGAV
HASURKAR (5640) for the Petitioner No.1
LAW OFFICER BRANCH (420) for the Respondent No.1
MR GAUTAM JOSHI SENIOR COUNSEL with VIKAS V. NAIR
(7444) for the Respondent No.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

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.

Page 1 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

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.

Page 2 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

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.

Page 3 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

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 Gujarat High Court.

Page 4 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

xvii. The petitioner, however, on 12.1.2026 withdrew this
petition with a liberty to approach this Court on the
judicial side. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed
as withdrawn with the liberty as sought for.

xviii. On 22.1.2026, witness Abhishek J. Rathore was
examined through video conferencing. On the same day, a
request was made by the Presenting Officer seeking for
time. This request for adjournment was opposed.
However, the Inquiry Officer, taking note of the fact that
the request for adjournment was made for the first time,
adjourned the matter to 29.1.2026 and directed witness
Abhishek J. Rathod to remain personally present.

xix. On 22.2.2026. the petitioner requested the Inquiry
Officer to secure the personal presence of the witness.

xx. On 1.4.2026, an application filed to recall the
witness was rejected by the Inquiry Officer.

xxi. On 7.4.2026, this petition has been filed, seeking for
quashing of the departmental proceedings.

xxii. On 10.4.2026, when the matter was posted before
the Court for the first time, an application for amendment
was made whereby the order dated 30.9.2025 by which
the Inquiry Officer rejected the claim to drop the inquiry
was sought to be challenged and this amendment was

Page 5 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

allowed as it was not opposed.

xxiii. On 15.4.2026, the matter was heard and the
judgment was reserved. At the time of reserving the
judgment, this Court had called upon the petitioner’s
counsel to place on record the memoranda of the two writ
petitions that had been filed before the Supreme Court
since this petition did not contain the details of the
prayers made in the writ petitions before the Supreme
Court but only merely stated that the petitions had been
filed.

xxiv. On 17.4.2026, the petitioner handed over the copies
of the writ petitions and along with the writ petitions, also
placed on record his written submissions on affidavit.
Though the petitioner had engaged an advocate to
represent him in the present litigation and had also
engaged Learned Senior Counsel Shri Percy Kavina to
argue on his behalf and who, in fact, had addressed the
arguments on 15.4.2026, this written submissions on
affidavit was not presented by the learned Counsel and
did not contain his signatures. The written submissions
contain only the signature and the affidavit of the
petitioner himself, thereby signifying that he had chosen
to present it by himself.

xxv. On 20.4.2026, after the judgment had been
reserved, Learned Senior counsel Shri Percy Kavina and

Page 6 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

advocate Shri Bhargav Hasurkar mentioned the matter at
11.00 a.m. and informed this Court that the written
submissions of the petitioner along with his affidavit had
been filed by the petitioner himself and this had been
done without their instructions or advice. They
specifically stated that they were dissociating themselves
from this affidavit and Shri Hasurkar had, in fact, issued a
notice of retirement to the petitioner dated 17.4.2026 in
which, the fact of filing this written submissions without
his advice was stated and it was also mentioned that the
petitioner would have been advised against filing of such
written submissions if his counsel would have been
sought for.

xxvi.The reason for this controversy is contained in
paragraph-(2) of the written submission, which reads as
follows:

“(2) The purpose to go to Hon'ble Supreme Court for relief
prayed for as I lost confidence in the Gujarat High
Court because the senior most Hon'ble High Court
Judge Mr. I J Vora is having good control over all
branches of High Court and my grievance against
Hon'ble Justice Mr. Vora. As I worked at Rajkot under
the then Principal District Judge Shri I J Vora in the
year 2012 for six month and I strongly believe that
Hon'ble Justice Mr. Vora is capable to instruct/direct to
his junior judge. As Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to
approach the High Court on the judicial side and hence
the petitioner filed the present Special Civil
Application.”

4. This act of the petitioner in filing this written
submissions and its import will be considered in the later

Page 7 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

part of this judgment.

5. Shri Percy Kavina, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner, firstly, contended that the charges
framed against the petitioner were vague and therefore,
no inquiry can be conducted in respect of such vague
charges. Secondly, and More importantly, he contended
that the inquiry against a judicial officer can be initiated
only if there was a written complaint accompanied by an
affidavit with verifiable materials. His entire argument is
based on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Law and
Justice for dealing with complaints against subordinate
judiciary, which has been issued to all the High Courts.
He submitted that since admittedly, there was no
complaint against the present petitioner, the very
initiation of the inquiry stood vitiated and will have to be
quashed.

6. In support of this argument, learned senior counsel
Shri Kavina relied upon a Division Bench ruling rendered
in the very case of the petitioner in Special Civil
Application No.11804 of 2017, in which it has been held
that no complaint against a judicial officer can be
entertained and no action should be taken unless it is
accompanied by a sworn affidavit and verifiable material.

7. As regards the act of the petitioner in filing his
written submissions, learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina

Page 8 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

submitted that the same had been filed without informing
the Advocate on Record and without even his signature.
He submitted that this conduct of the petitioner had led
to the issuance of a legal notice by the Advocate on
Record and therefore, no fault should be attributed to the
learned counsel.

8. Learned senior counsel Shri Gautam Joshi appearing
on behalf of the High Court contended that this writ
petition should not be entertained considering the
conduct of the petitioner. It was pointed out that every
attempt has been made by the judicial officer to thwart
the inquiry and hence, the petitioner may not be entitled
to any relief.

9. Learned senior counsel Shri Joshi pointed out that it
is rather a well settled law that courts should not
interfere in the matters wherein a challenge is laid to the
charge-sheet. He contended that the delinquent on whom
a charge-sheet had been laid would always have the
remedy of raising all contentions before the Inquiry
Officer and in the event, his objections were overruled,
the same would be a ground for appeal. He submitted
that if challenge to a charge-sheet is entertained, it would
only enable the delinquent to stall the inquiry and it
would be an attempt to ensure that the truth of the
allegations are not determined.

Page 9 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

10. Learned senior counsel Shri Joshi submitted that the
argument that a complaint accompanied with an affidavit
and verifiable material would not arise in the present
case, basically because the inquiry was not initiated on
the basis of any complaint but it was on the basis of the
information received by the Court. He pointed out that
the High Court would be well within its rights to initiate
department proceedings if it has brought to the notice of
the High Court that the conduct of a judicial officer is
improper.

11. Learned Senior counsel Shri Joshi pointed out that
the guidelines, the violation of which was urged by the
petitioner, would not be applicable to the present case
since the guidelines were only in respect of the
complaints that have been lodged by litigants against the
judicial officers. Such a guideline which was meant for a
particular purpose, i.e. to deal with the complaints of
litigants, cannot be used as a shield to prevent an inquiry
regarding a misconduct by a judicial officer.

12. Learned Senior counsel Shri Joshi pointed out that
the guidelines were essentially a procedure that was
being followed in order to avoid entertaining frivolous
complaints by litigants and those guidelines will have no
application in respect of a misconduct which has come to
the notice of the High Court of a judicial officer.

Page 10 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

13. Learned Senior counsel Shri Joshi as regards the
written submissions filed by the petitioner, submitted that
the statements made in para-2 of the written submission
was a clear attempt to scandalize the judiciary and
therefore, proceedings should be initiated under the
Contempt of Courts Act for criminal contempt.

14. In the light of the above, the following questions
would arise for consideration:

(1) Whether the petitioner can challenge the
initiation of a departmental inquiry and the
laying of a charge-sheet against him on the
ground that it violates the guidelines dated
31.12.2014 issued by the Ministry of Law and
Justice?

(2) Whether the statements made in para 2 of the
written submissions are contemptuous and merit
initiation of contempt proceedings against the
petitioner?

Regarding question No.1:

15. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
Article 309 read with Article 234 of the Constitution of
India, the Government of Gujarat after consultation of the
High Court of Gujarat has enacted the Gujarat Judicial
Service Rules, 2005. This Rule provides for constitution of
the ‘State Civil Services’ named ‘Gujarat State Judicial
Service’ and the Rules specify the cadres and posts which

Page 11 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

shall form the said service. These Rules also govern the
recruitment of judicial officers and deal with all issues
relating to the provisions officiating the seniority. Rule 23
of the said Rules reads as follows:
“23. Application of Other Rules.

All Rules regulating the conditions of service of the
members of the State Civil Services made from
time to time under any law or the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in so far as
they are not inconsistent with these Rules, shall be
applicable to the members of the Service.”

16. Thus, by virtue of Rule 23, all other rules regulating
the conditions of service of the members of the State Civil
Services made from time to time under any law or proviso
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India shall ipso facto
be applicable to the members of the judicial service.

17. As a consequence of Rule-23, the Gujarat Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, which
govern the disciplinary rules against the civil servants
will also be applicable in respect of the judicial officers.

18. Chapter-III of the said Rules provides for the Nature
of Penalties that can be imposed, the Disciplinary
Authority and also the authority who is empowered to
institute the proceedings. Rule 6 states that without
prejudice to the provisions of any other law, the penalties
indicated therein may be imposed for good and sufficient
reasons. The use of the phrase ‘for good and sufficient

Page 12 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

reasons’ would basically indicate that there must be an
adequate reason for imposition of any penalty against a
judicial officer by the disciplinary authority.

19. However, before imposing any penalty, the
provisions of Chapter-IV are to be complied with. In fact,
Chapter-IV provides for the detailed procedure to be
followed before imposition of a penalty.

20. Rule 9(1) and 2 read thus:

“9. Procedure for imposing major penalties :-

(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in items (4)
to (8) of rule 6 shall be passed except after an inquiry, held
as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and
rule 10 or in the manner provided by the Public Servants
(inquiry) Act, 1850 where such inquiry is held under that
Act.

(2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that
there are grounds for inquiry into the truth of any
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour or of any culpable
act or omission, against a Government servant, it may itself
inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the
provisions of the Public Servant (Inquiry) Act, 1950 as the
case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth (herein-
after referred to as, the Inquiry Authority)

[Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual
harassment within the meaning of rule [3-B] of the Gujarat
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, the complaints
Committee established in each Department or Office for
inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed to be the
inquiry authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for
the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee
shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for
the complaints committee for holding the inquiry into the
complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as
practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in
these rules.]

Explanation: Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the
inquiry, any reference in these rules to the Inquiry Authority

Page 13 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary
Authority.”

21. As could be seen from sub-rule (1), the requirement
before imposing a penalty is that an inquiry is mandatory.
To put it in the reverse, no penalty can be imposed
without an inquiry being conducted by the Disciplinary
Authority.

22. Sub-rule (2) states that if the Disciplinary Authority
is of the opinion that there are grounds for conducting an
inquiry into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or
misbehaviour or of any culpable act of commission, the
Disciplinary Authority may himself inquire into the matter
or he may appoint any other authority to inquire into the
matter. Thus, in order to initiate an inquiry regarding any
misconduct by an employee, the Disciplinary Authority
should necessarily form an opinion that there are good
grounds for such an inquiry.

23. The statutory rule does not contemplate the
requirement of there being any complaint, oral or written,
for initiation of inquiry. The formation of an opinion by an
authority for conducting an inquiry is the only statutory
prerequisite and nothing more. It cannot be in dispute
that this formation of an opinion by the authority can be
arrived at from various factors and could also be from
information which has come to its knowledge. A written
or a oral complaint could also be one such source in order

Page 14 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

to form an opinion.

24. It is also to be borne in mind that the Disciplinary
Authority is responsible for ensuring that the discipline in
an organization is maintained. The source of the
authority’s information regarding misconduct would not
be really relevant, and what would be relevant is that he
has received some information which is sufficient to form
an opinion about the probable misconduct of an employee
and the necessity of holding an inquiry to ascertain that
fact.

25. If an argument is advanced that there should be a
complaint in a prescribed manner or that a complaint
should be accompanied by an affidavit or that there
should be verifiable material before initiation of an
inquiry, then Rule 9(2) would be rendered redundant. If
there are statutory rules in place which permit the
initiation of an inquiry and the Rules therein provide only
for the formation of an opinion by the Disciplinary
Authority to order the initiation of an inquiry, this
statutory power cannot be whittled down or diluted by
contending that there must be something more, like in
the form of a written complaint which is supported by an
affidavit.

26. It is therefore, clear that the power to initiate an
inquiry against a judicial officer rests solely with the

Page 15 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

Disciplinary Authority and the only requirement for the
exercise of this power by the Disciplinary Authority is the
formation of an opinion by the Disciplinary authority.

27. The use of the words ‘good and sufficient reasons’
in Rule 6 read with the use of the term that, ‘the
Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion’ would indicate
that it is entirely upto the Disciplinary Authority to form
an opinion in the matter of holding an inquiry and also in
the matter of imposition of penalties. The Disciplinary
Authority would, therefore, have the discretion to take a
decision regarding the initiation of the inquiry. It is to be
reiterated that this wide and all-encompassing power of
the Disciplinary Authority cannot be restricted in any
manner whatsoever. Any attempt to put fetters on this
power would essentially mean the obligation of the head
of the organization to maintain discipline will be
destroyed and this is clearly impermissible, both in law
and in equity.

28. The argument of Learned Senior counsel Mr. Percy
Kavina, however, is that a complaint accompanied by an
affidavit and verifying material is a ‘must’ for initiation of
an inquiry as indicated in the Government guideline. That
argument cannot be accepted, firstly, because it is
against the mandate of the aforementioned statutory
Rules which govern the field and secondly, because this
argument stems from the fact that a guideline has been

Page 16 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

violated.

29. The Ministry of Law and Justice, on the basis of a
direction issued by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India has
issued guidelines. The guidelines read as follows:

“As you are aware, recently, Hon'ble the CJI, vide his D.O.
No.CJI/CC/Comp/2014/1405 dt. 3.10.2014, addressed to
the Chief Justice of all the High Courts, has asked the
High Courts and subordinate judiciary not to entertain
any complaint against a judicial officer unless it is
accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable material to
substantiate the allegation. Expressing concern over the
large number of complaints being filed against
subordinate judiciary by people having vested interest and
personal agenda. Hon'ble CJI has directed that
authenticity of the complaints must be ascertained before
any action is taken on it. In view of the provisions of the
Article 235 of the Constitution, further action relating to
the grievances/complaints against the judicial officers lies
at the High Court level.

All the Chief Justices of the High Courts have been
requested to give publicity to these guidelines laid down
in the communication dated 3rd October, 2014.

This being the position, you are requested to give such
wide publicity including through website of the High
Courts and subordinate Courts under the control of the
High Court so that litigants having any grievances/
complaints relating to the judiciary are aware of the
procedure required to be followed in such cases.
Department of Justice may be apprised of the action taken
in this regard so that once publicity has been given to
these guidelines, complaints/grievances received in the
Department of Justice can be responded to by referring to
these guidelines.”

30. The last paragraph of the above guidelines makes it
clear that in respect of which cases, the requirements of a
complaint being accompanied by a sworn affidavit and

Page 17 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

verifiable materials would be necessary i.e., in cases
where a litigant has a grievance against the judicial
officers of the trial courts.

31. It is to be stated here that there are vast number of
complaints being lodged against the judicial officers of
the trial courts raising all kinds of grievances regarding
the judicial officers. In most of the cases, the complaint is
by a disgruntled litigant who has suffered an adverse
order or by a litigant who wants to pressurize the judicial
officers by making false allegations. It is in this context
that the guidelines came to be issued making it
mandatory for the litigant to file a complaint against the
judicial officers to give a sworn affidavit in support of the
complaint and also produce verifiable material. This
requirement is to ensure that the complainant is held
accountable if it is found that the allegations are false or
misconceived.

32. This requirement, issued in the form of a guideline,
in relation to complaints by litigants against the judicial
officers will have no application whatsoever in respect of
the cases where the Disciplinary Authority has formed an
opinion that there are good and sufficient reasons to
initiate a disciplinary inquiry against a judicial officer.

33. It is to be noticed here that the Disciplinary
Authority in respect of the judicial officer will have

Page 18 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

various sources of information and the Disciplinary
Authority would be justified in initiating an inquiry on
consideration of the information that has been received
by it. It cannot be forgotten that the Disciplinary
Authority in respect of the judicial officer is the High
Court headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. If the highest
judicial body in the State has reasons to believe that
there are good and sufficient grounds to initiate an
inquiry, an argument that in order for the highest judicial
body to initiate proceedings, a complaint is necessary and
an affidavit should accompany it would be wholly
untenable.

34. To put it differently, the highest judicial body is
conferred with the power to initiate disciplinary
proceedings in respect of an alleged misconduct of a
judicial officer and this power is an independent and
absolute power and cannot be subjected to the
requirement of any complaint and an affidavit in support
of the complaint.

35. This is not to mean that the guideline issued by the
Ministry of Law and Justice on the basis of the direction
of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India will have to be
disregarded.

36. As explained above, the guideline is essentially in
respect of the complaints, that are being lodged by the

Page 19 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

litigants who have grievances against the judicial officers.
Normally, whenever a complaint is received from a
disgruntled litigant, if the same is not accompanied by an
affidavit, the complainant is called upon to file a sworn
affidavit for looking into the grievance. It will also be
open for the High Court to even act upon a complaint
which is not supported by an affidavit if the contents of
the complaint are sufficient to form an opinion that an
inquiry is necessary.

37. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment in
the case of the petitioner, i.e. in Special Civil Application
No.11804 of 2017, has no doubt observed that in order to
take action against a judicial officer, the complaint is
required to be accompanied by a sworn affidavit. It is
however to be noticed herein that in the said case, the
proceedings had emanated on the basis of an oral
representation made to the Chief Justice by the members
of the bar and in that context, certain observations were
made and also in the context that there was inordinate
delay between the incident and the initiation of the
inquiry. The Division Bench, in that case, was not called
upon to consider the power of the Disciplinary authority
with reference to statutory Rules and it has therefore not
considered the absolute right of the Disciplinary
Authority to initiate a departmental inquiry as
contemplated under the Gujarat Civil Services, (Discipline

Page 20 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

and Appeal) Rules, 1971. This judgment, therefore,
cannot support the argument of the petitioner.

38. It is to be stated that the observations made in the
said judgment would not amount to laying down the
proposition of law that the powers of the Disciplinary
Authority to initiate an inquiry under Rule 9 can be
exercised only if there is a written complaint. It is to be
reiterated that the power of the Disciplinary Authority to
initiate an inquiry against its employee on the formation
of an opinion cannot be made subject to the requirement
of there being a written complaint and a sworn affidavit
as it would run counter to the statutory Rule. It would be
entirely at the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to
initiate an inquiry and form its opinion on the basis of the
information that it may have received from various
sources.

39. In that view of the matter, the entire argument of
the learned senior counsel that no departmental inquiry
can be initiated unless there is a written complaint, a
sworn affidavit and verifiable material has to be rejected.

40. The argument that the charges laid against the
petitioner are vague and, therefore, the proceedings are
to be quashed, cannot also be accepted. If the grounds
are indeed vague, it would always be open for the
petitioner to raise this contention before the Inquiry

Page 21 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

Officer and make his submission good before the Inquiry
officer and if it fails before it, then, to the Disciplinary
authority. The argument regarding the vagueness of
charge cannot be entertained at this stage i.e., at the
stage where the the inquiry is already in progress. It is
for the Inquiry Officer to determine on consideration of
the material placed before him and consider whether the
charges were vague and it is not for this Court in exercise
of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to examine this issue.

41. Normally, the matter would have ended with the
above order and by dismissing the writ petition. However,
this Court is constrained to take into consideration the
conduct of the petitioner after the judgment was
reserved.

42. On 15.4.2026, as stated earlier, the judgment was
reserved after hearing the learned Senior counsels
appearing for the petitioner as well as for the High Court.
At the time of reserving the judgment, it was noticed by
this Court that though a reference was made to two writ
petitions filed by the petitioner before the Supreme
Court, however the pleadings were silent as to what were
the prayers that had been sought for in the said petitions.
Learned Senior counsel was therefore, called upon to
furnish the copies of the writ petitions that had been filed
before the Supreme Court in order to ascertain the

Page 22 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

prayers that were made therein.

43. In the guise of complying with this oral observation,
the petitioner, bypassing his advocate on record and the
learned senior counsel who had argued on his behalf, has
proceeded to file his written submissions and along with
which, he has enclosed two writ petitions that were filed
before the Supreme Court.

44. This written submission has been submitted to the
Court Master directly by the petitioner and it contains the
signature of only the petitioner and is also supported by
his affidavit. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner, a
serving Additional District Judge, has chosen to make a
statement which he believes to be true and correct to his
knowledge and belief.

45. As could seen from the averments made in para-2 of
the written submission, the petitioner seeks to scandalize
the Court. He is asserting that a senior judge of this
Court has good control over all the branches of the High
Court and it is his belief that this senior judge is capable
of instructing or directing his junior judges.

46. In our view, this assertion by an Additional District
Judge against a senior judge of this Court and imputing
that the senior High Court Judge has control of his junior
judges and is capable of instructing and directing his
junior judges is clearly an act which scandalizes and

Page 23 of 24
C/SCA/5112/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

lowers the authority of the Court. This would also amount
to an act which tends to interfere with the due course of
any judicial proceedings and also tends to obstruct the
administration of justice in any other manner. In other
words, these assertions clearly constitute a criminal
contempt.

47. We are, therefore, of the view that the papers
insofar as it relates to initiation of criminal contempt for
the assertions made in para 2, be placed before the
Division Bench who is assigned the roster of contempt
matters to initiate further proceedings, if it so desires.

48. The writ petition is DISMISSED subject to the above
direction to place the papers before the Division Bench
assigned the Contempt roster to consider taking action, if
it deems fit, in respects of the assertions made in para 2
of the Written submission on affidavit.

49. The matter shall be listed on 15/6/26 and petitioner
shall be personally present before the Division Bench on
that day.

Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)

Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 16:43:08

Page 24 of 24