The Gujarat High Court recently upheld the termination of a magistrate who took unauthorized leave after sending a strongly worded letter to the administrative judge of the High Court and the principal district judge of Vadodara in 2013 [Nileshbhai Chauhan v. Registrar General].
A panel of Justices Biren Vaishnav and Nisha Thakore expressed their opinion on the matter. They highlighted that unauthorized absence from work might be perceived differently in the case of an ordinary employee compared to a judicial officer. The judges emphasized that a judicial officer abandoning their service by stating they won't return until a specific issue is resolved presents a distinct scenario.
The Court affirmed the dismissal of the former judge, stating that his conduct was not suitable for a judicial officer, as correctly noted in the High Court's report.
During the hearing, Nileshbhai Chauhan, the magistrate in question, was found to have taken unauthorized leave from May 13, 2013, to July 11, 2013. He had been on approved leave from April 24, 2013, to May 10, 2013. While on vacation, he noticed a news article about an unexpected strike by Vadodara lawyers. He informed the principal district judge and personally met with him regarding this issue.
Following this, he wrote a letter using aggressive language directed at the principal district judge and the administrative judge of the High Court. Chauhan's letter alleged a "rot" within the judicial system caused by elements such as protesting lawyers. He accused the principal district judge and the administrative judge of indirectly supporting the decline of the system.
Chauhan declared he wouldn't return to work until the issue was resolved and took unauthorized leave from May 13 to July 11, 2013. Consequently, in 2015, he was dismissed from service for baseless allegations, undignified language against the High Court's administrative judge and principal district judge, and unauthorized absence.
Chauhan challenged this dismissal in 2016, which the High Court rejected. While acknowledging that a judicial officer might have valid reasons to express dissatisfaction with the system, the Court criticized Chauhan's chosen manner of doing so in this case. The Court highlighted that while expressing anguish against the system might be justified, Chauhan's letter unfairly implicated the administrative judge of the High Court and the District Judge by suggesting their cooperation in the systematic decline.
