TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent. Based on the resolution of the Full Court, an order of dismissal from service was passed by the Governor of Karnataka, vide order dated 19.03.2009. 8. Challenging the findings of the enquiry officer, the respondent filed a set of three writ petitions and challenging the order of dismissal from service, the respondent filed a separate writ petition. All these writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Judge, through a common order dated 30.11.2011. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed intra-court appeals. Those appeals were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by a very strange order, not only setting aside the order of penalty and the findings of the enquiry officer but also directing that no further inquiry can be held against the respondent. It is against such a common order passed in a batch of four intra-court appeals that the Registrar General of the High Court has come up with these civil appeals. 10. Before we proceed to consider the correctness of the view taken by the High Court, in the light of the rival contentions, it will be useful to extract in a tabular column the charges framed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in hearing other/old matters. Not proved 5. That the judicial officer had granted bail to an accused in a case involving offences under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Forest offence - exclusively triable by magistrate. Not a violation of Section 86, 87 nor was it an ivory case. Was under Section, 104(A), bail was granted after hearing APP who was given opportunity to file objections. That evidence of the APP cannot be relied on has he is an interested witness, had reported an incident of misbehaviour of his after which contempt proceedings had been initiated against him, was now trying to falsely implicate him. Proved Inquiry numbered DI.3/2005 1. The judicial officer without preparing the text of the judgment had pronounced the operative portion of the judgment in open court and that the judgment was a actually prepared later. Denied the charge. Stated that he had never pronounced a single judgment without dictating it in its entirety. He had a new stenographer, who was not in the habit of maintaining the stenographer bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the judicial officer prepared the judgment in a civil suit on 5.2.2002 and it remained incomplete. Denied the charge. That vested interests may have played mischief by replacing the signed full judgment with partly printed judgment. No complaint from any persons. Fictitious person who filed the complaints. Stenographer new and unaccustomed to dictation. Proved 5. That the judicial officer pronounced the judgment in a civil suit on 23.10.2002 and a portion of the judgment was typed on the order-sheet and a formal judgment was prepared only six days later. Denied the charge. That vested interests like sheristedar may have played mischief by replacing the original judgment. No complaint from any persons. Present complainant is a fictitious person created by Somasekhar, the APP for revenge. Stenographer new and unaccustomed to dictation. Proved Inquiry numbered DI.4/2005 1. The judicial officer had, in a case involving offences punishable under the Karnataka Forest Act, at the insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved in preparing the sale list - all ground work done by these officers. These material witnesses were not examined. Motor cycle was old, parked in the open thus exposed to rain/ sunlight for more than 6 months - sold for Rs. 7000/-. Sheristedar misplaced auction records and thereafter tried to falsely implicate him to save himself. If subordinates had done something and he had affixed his signature due to oversight, should be pardoned for the lapses. Proved 11. It is seen that among the charges held proved, some related to the judicial orders passed by the respondent. Therefore, we are prepared straightaway, to ignore those charges and see 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. 12. Once those charges which revolve around the manner of disposal of certain cases are ignored, what remains are certain serious charges that revolve around pronouncement of operative portion of the judgment in open court without the whole text of the judgment being ready. Take for instance, Charge Nos. 1, 2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. 17. While considering a challenge to an order of penalty imposed upon a judicial officer pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings followed by a resolution of the Full Court of the High Court, the Court is obliged only to go by established parameters namely, (i) whether the charges stood proved; (ii) whether the findings of the inquiry officer are reasonable and probable and not perverse; (iii) whether the rules of procedure and the principles of natural justice have been followed; and (iv) whether the penalty is completely disproportionate, especially in the light of the gravity of the misconduct, his past record of service and any other extenuating circumstances. 18. Unfortunately, the High Court did not test the correctness of the order of penalty in this case, on the above parameters. Instead, the High Court has recorded a finding in Paragraph 26 of the impugned order, as though the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue got clarified in The Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. B. Karunakar and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727. 22. 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. 23. We have not come across a case where the High Court, while setting aside an order of penalty has held that there shall not be any further inquiry against the delinquent. But in this case, the High Court has done exactly the same, creating a new jurisprudence. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the High Court reads as follows:- Writ Appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
