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 3

rd

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

Page 24 of 24