Ahmadabad, Oct 13: The Gujarat High Court while hearing a Cause Title: Amratlal Narendrabhai Vizoda v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation 2026:GUJHC:61207-DB) has held that a Judicial Officer should not associate himself with practicing advocates and must keep a distance from them to prevent any impression of impropriety following which , it upheld the dismissal of a Judicial Magistrate First Class who had received and used a mobile phone from an advocate practicing at the same station.
The Court held that a charge based on a wrong judicial order or departure from procedure could not have been framed against a judicial officer.
It found the remaining charges, on the phone, non-reporting of vehicle transactions and non-reporting of a bank loan, proved by clear and cogent evidence, and held that read together they reflected a lack of integrity for which dismissal was the only punishment.
A Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra while hearing observed, “If a Judicial Officer decides to accept a phone from a practicing advocate and it is established that he was communicating with the practicing advocate over a certain period of time, that, by itself, would be improper. 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”.
“In our view, the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority was absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of that of a Judicial Officer”, the Bench noted.
Court distinguished M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & others (2006) 5 SCC 88 because the key charges were admitted, and Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another (1999) 7 SCC 739 because these were not trifling complaints.
The Court dismissed the writ petition.
|