Case: Registrar General  Vs. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti

UpadhyayRegistrar (Administration)High Court of Gujarat, at SolaAhmedabad-380 060No. A. 0722/82Dated 19.9.2006ToMiss J.C. Buddhabhatti,Principal Civil Judge andJudicial Magistrate,First Class, KodinarThrough: The Principal District Judge, JunagadhSubject: Adverse remark- Communication of …Madam,With reference to the subject noted above, I am directed by thethe Acting Chief Justice and Judges, to state that the following remarks have been passed in the Confidential Report in Form No. III in respect of you:-(4) Personal characteristics:(8) Politeness and courtesy Required improvement(5) The DistrictAssessmentOf the Civil Judge regarding his/her-(x) Attitude towards the public and the bar Requires improvementI am, therefore, directed by their Lordships to request you to be so good as to try to show improvement in these respects in future.Yours faithfullySd/-Registrar (Admn.The respondent replied to the said communication by her letter dated 14.11.2006, in which she pointed out that the disposal of cases by her had been good. She had disposed of 509 Civil and 1619 Criminal cases totaling to 2128 cases during the period January 2006 to October 2006. She stated in her letter that it would not have been possible to do so without her good attitude, and also without the cooperation of the bar and public. In any event, she assured in her reply that she will try to improve politeness and courtesy, and also improve her attitude towards the public and the bar.7. Thereafter, the respondent received a letter dated 25.7.2007 from the Registrar Administration, High Court of Gujarat communicating adverse remarks for the subsequent period. This letter reads as25-7-2007ToMiss J.C. BuddhabhattiPrincipal Civil Judge andJudicial Magistrate, First Class,Kodinar.Through :The Principal District Judge, Junagadh.Subject : Adverse remarks------------------------Communication of…Madam,With reference to the subject noted above, I am directed by the Honourable the Chief Justice and Judges to state that, the following remarks have been passed in the Confidential Report in Form No.IV in respect of you :-(3) Character :(c) Whether she mixes inYes,itis heard so.(d) Whether she maintainsNoitis heard so.Judicial aloofnessByLimited contact(4) Personal characteristics :(4) Clarity of thought and expression in correspondence and discussionRequired improvement(8) Politeness and courtesyRequired improvement(5) The DistrictAssessment of the Civil Judge regarding his / her(i) Ability ableNow appears, not for independent station.(vi) Judicial qualities requiredNow appears it Improvement(vii) (A) Administrative capacity, Knowledge of administrative inadequate work and office routineNow appears(x) Attitude towards the public And the BarRequired improvement(xi) Any other remarksShe has threatened the Staff in the name of District JudgeHenceShe is not reliableandHence it is notPossible inFor the D.J. to enterwithoutHer Chamber third person.I am, therefore, directed by Their Lordships to request you to be so good as to show improvement in these respects in future.Yours faithfully,Registrar (Admn.The respondent replied the said letter on 24.8.2007 and herreply reads asCivil CourtKodinar.Dt. 24-08-2007FromMiss J.C. Buddhbhatti,Principal Civil Judge andJudicial Magistrate, First Class,Kodinar.To,TheRegistrar (Administration)High Court of Gujarat, at SolaAhmedabad- 380060.Through: The Principal District Judge, JunagadhSubject: Clarification in respect of communication ofAdverse Remarks.Ref: YourLetter No.A.0722/82,Dt.27/7/07Respected Sir,With reference to the subject noted above, I have honour to submit my reply as under, kindly consider the same.1) The remarks in respect of my characters as shown 3(c)(d), are based on hearsay because as a judicial officer I maintain judicial aloofness and I am not keeping any relation or company with any person which should not.2) The remarks in respect of my personal characteristic as shown in para-4 – I will follow the instructions and will improve the requirement as shown in said remarks.3) With reference to remarks shown in para-5(i) – I have to state that I have disposed of total cases3317 (834+2483) Civil as well as criminal case during my tenure in independent station and tried to minimize the arrears. So I believe that I am able to work in independent station. Further, I will try to improve judicial qualities as mentioned in para-5(vi).4) In respect of remarks mentioned in para-5(vii)(a). I submit that I am fresh recruited and require experience in respect of administrative work even though I am trying to see that office routine work should run smoothly and I am confident in near future I will able to achieve perfect administrative capacity and knowledge of administrative work and office routine work.5) In respect of remarks in para-(x), I have disposed total 3317 (834+2483) civil as well as criminal cases during my tenure. It is not easy to do so without my good attitude and also without the co-operation of Bar and Public. My relation with public and Bar is cordial. Further Bar Association has no complaint against me.6) With reference to remarks in para-5(xi). I submit that some of the staff members including Registrar, criminal clerk and senior clerk were mischievous and tried to hamper administrative works. I complained against the criminal clerk and Registrar and account clerk to the District Jude in writing. Some of the staff members were impolite and uncontrollable and did not maintain the dignity of a lady Judge. I have not threatened them in the name of District Judge but most of the male staff members from Junagadh and working in Kodinar Court, they threatened me in the name of District Judge. Those members of the staff are already transferred from this station and senior clerk Mr. M.H. Tanna, was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. So at present relationship between the presiding officer and staff members are quite good and administrative work runs smoothly. I have every respect for my District Judge and never shown any disregard for him. During my tenure District Judge Shree B.U. Joshi Saheb and Shree R.D. Kothari Saheb has periodically visited my court and I behaved politely with them and have not shown disregard for them so as superior officer naturally. District Judge Saheb can enter in my Chamber during the visit. Further I have never been instructed by my superior officers in any occasion during their visit for any untoward incident.Further I assure I will try to do my level best to comply the suggestions for improvement as per your Honours desire.Thanking you,Yours Faithfully,(Miss J.C. Buddhbhatti)Principal Civil Judge andJ.M.F.C. Kodinar.Then followed the termination of the service of the respondent vide a notification No.CJM/102004/340/D (Part) dated 14.12.2007. The termination letter reads asOF GUJARATLEGAL DEPARTMENTSachivalaya, GandhinagarDated : 14th December, 2007NOTIFICATION NO.CJM/102004/340/D (Part)Miss J.C. Buddhabhati, Principal Judge and JMFC, Kodinar was appointed in cadre of Civil Judge (JD) by this department Notification No.CJM-102004-340-D (Part) dated 2.3.2005 on probation for two years.TheHigh Court, on the strength of material on record relating to period of probation of Miss J.C. Buddhabhati, Civil Judge and JMFC, has found that her performance is not good and satisfactory and that she is not suitable for the post she holds, and therefore recommended to terminate her probation period immediately and she should not be continued to officiate for long term.The Government of Gujarat accordingly accepts the recommendation ofHigh Court and terminates appointment on probation period of Miss J.c. Buddhabhatti, Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kodinar with immediate effect.By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat.(V.K. PUJARA)Deputy Secretary to GovernmentLegalThe respondent was naturally shocked to receive this order, and made a representation on this termination letter on 4.1.2008, in which she pointed out that if she was given an opportunity of being heard, she could have clarified the position with respect to whatever material that was there on record, relating to her probation period, and on the basis of which her performance was held not to be good and satisfactory. As far as her merit is concerned, she submitted that during her tenure she had rendered 271 judgments in civil matters, and 523 judgments in criminal cases. She was one of the very few candidates who were given independent postings at the beginning of their career. She pointed out that as per the norms of disposal, an average judicial officer holding an independent charge was supposed to decide six civil matters and eight criminal matters in a month, and her disposal was far more than the required average. Her performance was rated as very good for the period from 7.4.2006 till 31.12.2006, and also during the year 2007. She added that to the best of her information 115 Judges were appointed during her time which included some 80 Judges of her batch, and none of them had given as many judgments as she had, both on civil as well as on criminal side. She further stated that as per her information only 25 of her judgments were carried in appeal to the appellate court, and one up to the High Court which got confirmed.11. The respondent thereafter pointed out that as Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, she was supposed to conduct some Miscellaneous cases (such as concerning liquor prohibition) alongwith civil and criminal matters. When she joined as a Judge, some 835 Misc. cases were pending in her court, out of which she disposed of 613 cases in the year 2007. She pointed out in her representation that because of her industry and integrity, some of her subordinate staff members who were otherwise dishonest, started behaving in an uncouth, uncivilized and non-chivalrous manner. She was therefore, constrained to record in her letters dated 7.9.2006 and 30.9.2006 to the then District Judge of Junagadh, Mr. B.U. Joshi, with respect to the misconduct of Mr. D.R. Weghela, clerk in charge of criminal matters, and C.O C. Mr. R. R. Sewak. She had also given an oral complaint against another clerk, one Mr. M.H. Tanna, to the District Judge regarding his misconduct, since he had demanded alcohol from an accused, and remained drunk while he was on duty. She also recorded that Mr. Tanna threatened her that she was on probation, and if she did not toe his line, she would not be confirmed. She recorded that this very person was an accused in another case under Section 302 of I.P.C, and at that time he was enlarged on bail, but subsequently had come to be convicted by judgment and order dated 4.9.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Junagadh.12. Thereafter, the respondent recorded in that letter, that she had reported to the then District Judge, Mr. B.U. Joshi that despite her warning time and again, the above referred three persons used to come in a drunken state to the court premises, and used to threaten her by calling names in vulgar Gujarati slang. She had given a written complaint, dated 3.2.2007, against Mr. R.R. Sevak and night watch-man Mr. V.B. Solanki, to the District Judge who succeeded Mr. B.U. Joshi. In view of her complaint, the said Mr. Solanki was transferred from the post of night watchman, but still at night time he used to come without her permission outside her residence in a drunken state along with some advocates. The advocates also used to send their clients in a drunken state to her residence. Having been made to face such hostility from a few members of the bar and the criminal elements in the staff, she asked: ‘In the face of such hostile members of the bar and the criminal members (of the staff) can an unmarried woman beShe had been given no protection despite all these hardships, and yet she continued to do her best, but in return had been served with the order of termination. She specifically stated that the vigilance officer of the High Court Mr. B.U. Joshi, who was the earlier District Judge of Junagadh, had protected and encouraged the staff members against whom she had made complaints, and had therefore, made adverse remarks in the year 2006. In any case, she pointed out that those adverse remarks were contrary to the material on record.13. By the time of sending of this reply, the respondent had come to know that the officer conducting the inquiry, had given credence to an allegation of her being involved with one Mr. N.P. Thakkar, who was also a trainee Judge alongwith her at Rajkot. Hence, by way of caution, sensing that the action against her had perhaps been taken due to those allegations, she explained her position in that behalf. She accepted that sometimes she did discuss legal problems with her senior judges and co-trainee judges like Mr. Thakker. Sometimes such discussions lasted for some longer time, but that was all. After her joining as Civil Judge, at Kodinar she had never met Mr. Thakker, who was posted as the Civil Judge and JMFC, at Jetpur. Unfortunately, it so happened that the wife of Mr. Thakker committed suicide on 1.1.2007, and her mother lodged an F.I.R at Jetpur against Mr. Thakker, for the offences under Section 498 A, 306, 114 of I.P.C read with Section 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In that F.I.R, a doubt was raised regarding the involvement of Mr. Thakker with another woman. The name of the respondent was not mentioned therein but the local daily newspapers of Saurashtra blamed the respondent for the incident, and damaged her reputation, as if she was responsible for that incident. Thereafter, the respondent specifically stated in her reply that Vigilance Officer had made a one-sided report, and had not heard her, as well as majority of the members of the bar, regarding the allegations against her. It is on the basis of such a prejudiced report that her probation period was being terminated.14. In her letter the respondent specifically asserted as follows and it is relevant tohave proved my mettle and potential in the face of hostile staff and some members of the Bar, and in the face of hostile male dominant society, and in the face of dishonest yellowrespondent therefore, requested that her case be reviewed, and sought reinstatement with continuity, backwages, and consequential benefits.15. The aforesaid representation was however not considered, and that led her to file a Writ Petition in the High Court. The appellants filed a reply and vigorously contested the Writ Petition. The High Court on the judicial side however held that the termination of the respondent was in breach of Article 311, inasmuch as she was not informed of the charges against her, nor was she given the opportunity of being heard in respect thereof. The Court held that, this was not a case of termination simpliciter of a probationary officer, and therefore, set-aside the termination of her services, and directed her reinstatement with backwages.

Court's reasoning:
we must once again reflect on the facts that have emerged in the present case. As noted earlier, the respondent was a candidate who had obtained a high rank in the selection for the judicial service, and was given an independent posting in a rural area, where she was living all alone. Her disposal of cases had been very good to say the least. The complaints made by her, regarding the misbehaviour of the staff, and the harassment to her by a section of the bar, were not heeded by the then District Judge, leave aside making an attempt to understand the difficulties faced by her. Instead, certain unjustified adverse remarks were made against her. Subsequently, the then District Judge conducted the preliminary inquiry against her, in his capacity as the vigilance officer, wherein without any justification he tried to connect her with the death of the wife of another judicial officer. It is the duty of the District Judge and also of the High Court to protect the judicial officers against unjustified allegations. However, what we find in the present case is that instead of doing the same, an investigation was conducted against the respondent without affording her any opportunity, though it contained allegations against her character, and the investigation was sought to be justified as determination of her suitability for the post which she was holding. We would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the High Courts must see to it that the hostile work environment for junior judicial officers, particularly the lady officers, is eliminated. This is necessary to encourage the young officers to put in good judicial work without fear or favour. We are constrained to say that in the present case the High Court administration has clearly failed in this behalf.