The Gujarat High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) from service over allegations that he held three 'benami' mobile phones, and that he had failed to disclose vehicle purchases and a personal loan in violation of applicable rules [Amratlal Narendrabhai Vizoda vs State of Gujarat & Anr].

A Division Bench of Justice NS Sanjay Gowda and Justice JL Odedra also noted that one of the 'benami' mobile phones used by the judicial officer was acquired from a practicing advocate, with whom he exchanged as many as 186 phonecalls between June 2007 and May 2008.

The Court termed this improper conduct on the judicial officer's part.

"A Judicial Officer should not associate himself with practicing advocates and has to maintain a distance from the advocates to prevent any impression of impropriety. If the evidence indicated that he had actually secured the phone from a practicing advocate and was using the same, that, by itself, clearly amounts to misconduct," the Bench observed.

Two other charges levelled against the judicial officer were that he failed to disclose the purchase of several vehicles, and that he took a ₹35,000 personal loan without notifying the High Court, in violation of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971.

Following a departmental inquiry that began in 2008, a chargesheet was filed against the judicial officer, Amratlal Narendrabhai Vizoda, in 2009. He was accused of taking bribes from litigants for passing favourable orders through agents, for which purpose he allegedly used 'benami' mobile phones that were registered in the names of third parties.

He was eventually dismissed from service in 2016, based on a recommendation by the Full Court. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging his dismissal from service.

On September 25 this year, the High Court dismissed his plea and affirmed the judicial officer's dismissal from service.

Among other observations, the Court rejected the judicial officer's defence that his vehicle purchases were known to the authorities because he drew petrol allowances by citing the vehicle registration numbers.

"If there are Conduct Rules which clearly specify that the acquisition of any movable property exceeding Rs.25,000/- is to be reported, the petitioner, being a Judicial Officer, the same was required to be complied without any demur and promptly. The petitioner, being a Judicial Officer, cannot contend that the acquisition of a movable property by him could be inferred by the Prescribed Authority because he was claiming petrol allowance," the High Court said.

The Court also dismissed the judicial officer's argument that the personal loan he took was for a medical emergency concerning his ailing brother. The Court pointed out that the judicial officer could have informed the High Court after the emergency was over as well, but failed to so.

The Court, however, rejected a charge against the judicial officer over certain procedurally flawed judicial orders. An inquiry committee had earlier found that he treated certain warrant cases as summons-trial cases to favour some accused. The Court said that this could not have been a ground to accuse the judicial officer of improper conduct.

"The laying of such a charge itself would be improper, fundamentally because the petitioner could not have been proceeded against for passing a wrong judicial order or for not following the prescribed procedure while discharging his judicial functions," it held.

Nevertheless, since the remaining charges stood proved, the Court held that the judicial officer's conduct pointed to a lack of integrity. Therefore, the Court concluded that dismissal was the only appropriate punishment and upheld the same.

"The charges alleged against the petitioner and which were essentially admitted by the petitioner clearly indicate that they are not trifling complaints against the petitioner, but complaints which proved that he lacked integrity," the Court said.

[Read Judgment]