The Gujarat High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) after finding serious misconduct in his use of three mobile phones allegedly held in the names of others, failure to report vehicle purchases and non-disclosure of a personal loan.
A Division Bench of Justice NS Sanjay Gowda and Justice JL Odedra was hearing a challenge brought by Amratlal Narendrabhai Vizoda against the decision to remove him from judicial service.
The Court particularly took note of evidence concerning one of the mobile phones, which was allegedly obtained from a practicing advocate. Records showed that the judicial officer had exchanged 186 calls with the advocate between June 2007 and May 2008.
The Bench said such an association raised concerns because judicial officers are expected to maintain an appropriate distance from practicing lawyers to ensure that their conduct does not create even an appearance of impropriety.
The case originated from a departmental inquiry initiated in 2008. A chargesheet followed in 2009, alleging, among other things, that Vizoda had accepted bribes from litigants through intermediaries and used mobile phones registered in other people’s names while doing so.
The judicial officer was eventually dismissed from service in 2016 following a recommendation of the High Court’s Full Court.
While examining the challenge to the dismissal, the Bench also considered allegations that Vizoda had failed to report the purchase of several vehicles as required under the applicable conduct rules.
His defence was that the authorities were already aware of the vehicles because he had claimed petrol allowances using their registration numbers.
The Court rejected that explanation, noting that the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 specifically required prior reporting of movable property purchases exceeding ₹25,000. The obligation, it said, could not be treated as fulfilled merely because information about the vehicles might have been indirectly available to officials.
The Bench also rejected his explanation concerning a ₹35,000 personal loan. Vizoda had argued that the money was borrowed during a medical emergency involving his brother.
The Court observed that even if the emergency explained the initial borrowing, there was an opportunity to inform the High Court subsequently. No such disclosure was made.
However, the Bench did find fault with one aspect of the disciplinary proceedings. It held that Vizoda could not properly be proceeded against merely for passing judicial orders that were allegedly incorrect or procedurally flawed.
An inquiry committee had accused him of treating certain warrant cases as summons cases, allegedly benefiting some accused persons. The High Court held that an erroneous judicial order, by itself, could not become a disciplinary charge against a judicial officer for misconduct in the discharge of judicial functions.
That finding did not, however, alter the outcome of the case.
The Court held that the remaining charges, particularly those concerning the undisclosed transactions and mobile phones, were serious and demonstrated a lack of integrity. It consequently concluded that the punishment of dismissal could not be interfered with and dismissed Vizoda’s challenge.