2023 (4) TMI 1251 - SC - Indian Laws

Gross misconduct - burden to prove - whether the order of penalty of dismissal from service was justified qua the other charges and whether the Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside the same? - HELD THAT - A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated. All that the respondent has done in the departmental enquiry is just to pass on the responsibility to the inefficient and allegedly novice stenographer - It is not known how the findings with regard to such serious charges have been completely white-washed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is true that some of the charges revolve around judicial pronouncements and the judicial decision-making processes and that they cannot per se without anything more form the foundation for departmental proceedings. Therefore we are ignoring those charges. But the charges which revolve around gross negligence and callousness on the part of the respondent in not preparing/dictating judgments but providing a fait accompli is completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer. The defence taken by the respondent that the lack of experience and the inefficiency on the part of the stenographer has to be blamed for the whole text of the judgment not getting ready even after several days of pronouncement of the result in open court was entirely unacceptable. But unfortunately the High Court not only accepted this panchatantra story but also went to the extent of blaming the administration for not examining the stenographer as a witness. Such an approach is wholly unsustainable. If it was the case of the respondent that the entire blame lay upon the stenographer it was for him to have summoned the stenographer as a witness. The High Court unfortunately reversed the burden of proof. It is not the case of the respondent that the Full Court of the High Court took a decision to impose the penalty of dismissal from service even before furnishing the copies of the enquiry reports to the respondent. The show cause notices enclosing the enquiry reports are dated 11.10.2007. The representations made by the respondent are dated 26.10.2007. It is only thereafter that the Administrative Committee No.1 considered the matter on 28.08.2008 and it was placed before the Full Court on 04.10.2008. Therefore the opinion of the High Court that the second show cause notices were in violation of the principles of natural justice is not factually and legally correct. The impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The order of penalty imposed upon the respondent is upheld - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the penalty of dismissal from service.
2. Validity of the inquiry officer's findings.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Propriety of the High Court's order preventing further inquiry.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the Penalty of Dismissal from Service:
The Supreme Court examined whether the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent, a Civil Judge (Junior Division), was justified. The charges against the respondent included pronouncing the operative portion of judgments without preparing the entire text and irregularities in conducting auction sales of properties. The Court found these charges to be "very serious in nature" and the respondent's defense as "wishy-washy." The Court held that a judicial officer cannot pronounce judgments without the full text being ready and dismissed the respondent's defense blaming an inefficient stenographer as "entirely unacceptable."

2. Validity of the Inquiry Officer's Findings:
The inquiry officer's reports found some charges proved and others not proved. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had unduly dismissed the findings of the inquiry officer by attributing the charges to animosity from a member of the local Bar and an Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court emphasized that even if there was ill-will, it did not condone the respondent's conduct of not preparing judgments before pronouncement.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court addressed the High Court's opinion that the second show cause notice indicating the proposed penalty was contrary to law. The Court clarified that the requirement for a second show cause notice regarding the proposed penalty was removed by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, and upheld by a Constitution Bench. The Court found that the Full Court of the High Court did not take a decision to impose the penalty before furnishing the inquiry reports to the respondent, thus complying with natural justice principles.

4. Propriety of the High Court's Order Preventing Further Inquiry:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's decision to quash the inquiry reports and prevent any further inquiry against the respondent. The Court found this approach "wholly unsustainable" and unprecedented. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and upheld the penalty of dismissal from service.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench's order of the High Court, and upheld the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent. The writ petitions filed by the respondent were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.