Gujarat high court upholds judge’s dismissal for ‘unsuitability’

AHMEDABAD: The

Gujarat high court

on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by a

judge

removed from service for ‘unsuitability’. Besides the matter of her

unsuitability

for service, which was the grounds for her

termination

, the judge was also suspected of having forged the resignation letters of two other judges. However, the HC order did not mention this as a cause of any action against her.
She failed to secure anticipatory bail from the higher courts for the alleged

forgery

.

This case involved a civil judge (junior division), Mayuri Panchal, who was inducted in 2013 with a two-year probation period. Her probation was extended till March 2022, when an order simpliciter was issued for the termination of her services, stating that her performance was not satisfactory. During the extended probation period, a departmental inquiry against her over her conduct took place in 2017, but the HC decided not to act against her and her probation was extended further.
In 2021, when she was posted at the court in Limbdi in Surendranagar district, the principal district judge received the resignation letters of two judges, who denied having written them. Two FIRs for forgery were lodged and a police investigation pointed to Panchal’s involvement. In Dec 2022, she approached the HC for anticipatory bail, claiming that since she had “issued notices against the collector, range IG, superintendent of police and police inspector, it had resulted in vindictive action against her”.

Her anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the HC on the grounds that she should have approached a sessions court in Surendranagar district, which she said would be biased. She approached the Supreme Court but finally withdrew her pleas in May.
Meanwhile, in March 2022, Panchal was asked to leave. She challenged her

dismissal

before the HC with her advocate asserting that the dismissal was based on her unsatisfactory performance till 2018, whereas her performance had improved after 2018. She continued to oppose her sacking as ‘stigmatic’ because it came after a departmental inquiry.

However, the bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee turned down the petition, observing that her termination order does not indict her for any misconduct. Merely an inquiry against her on the principal district judge’s report doesn’t change the nature of the order of termination simpliciter into that of punishment because the HC’s standing committee had not taken any action or formed any opinion on the inquiry report.
While the issue of forging the resignation letters was discussed during the hearing of Panchal’s petition, the HC order does not mention it as a cause of any action against her.