Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Sri M. Narasimha Prasad – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2519-2522 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 25714-25717 of 2019)
Decided On : 10-04-2023
(A) Service Law – Dismissal from post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Reversal by Division Bench of High Court – Allegations of gross misconduct – Among charges held proved, some related to judicial orders passed by respondent – These charges are very serious in nature – A Judicial Officer cannot pronounce concluding portion of his judgment in open court without entire text of judgment being prepared/dictated – Charges which revolve around gross negligence and callousness on part of respondent in not preparing/dictating judgments, but providing a fait accompli, is completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer – High Court, while setting aside order of penalty held that there shall not be any further inquiry against delinquent, creating a new jurisprudence – Impugned order of Division Bench of High Court set aside and order of penalty imposed upon respondent upheld. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 15, 23 and 24)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 311 – Show cause notice – Requirement of a second show cause notice relating to proposed penalty was removed from Article 311 of Constitution by Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
Challenging a common order passed by Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka, setting aside penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon respondent herein, who happened to be a Civil Judge (Junior Division), Registrar General of High Court of Karnataka has come up with these appeals.
Findings of Court:
It is not the case of respondent that 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. 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 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 second show cause notices were in violation of principles of natural justice is not factually and legally correct.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Leave granted.
2. Challenging a common order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, setting aside a penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the respondent herein, who happened to be a Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka has come up with the above appeals.
3. We have heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing the appellant-High Court and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. The respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide a notification dated 31.01.1995.
5. On certain allegations of gross misconduct, the respondent was placed under suspension by an order dated 25.01.2005, followed by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, with the issue of Charge Memos dated 23.03.2005 in DI No.2/2005; DI No.3/2005; DI No.4/2005 and DI No.5/2005.
6. Separate enquiries followed in connection with all the four Charge Memos namely DI Nos.2,3,4,5 of 2005, after the culmination of which, separate reports were submitted by the enquiry officer on 29.03.2007 and 27.04.2007. As per the enquiry reports, some charges stood proved and the other charges were not proved.
7. Therefore, second show cause notices were issued and thereafter the Full Court of the High Court of Karnataka resolved on 04.10.2008 to impose 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 against the respondent under each of the Charge Memos; his reply to each of the charges and the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of those charges.
Charges against the Judicial Officer
| S. No. | Charge | Reply to Charge | Held to be proved/not proved by the Inquiry Officer | |||||||
| Inquiry DI.2/2005 | ||||||||||
| 1. | That the judicial officer had granted an order of status quo on an interlocutory application for temporary injunction in a civil suit and had further granted an ex-parte order of temporary injunction in yet another civil. suit against the State, which was represented by the defendants in violation of Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. | First suit- Absence of the AGP (Mallaraja Gowda) on several occasions. Case was not adjourned unnecessarily. Within two months, the interim injunction granted was vacated. Second suit- Case of forcible eviction. Plaintiff had shown prima facie case, therefore order of status quo had been granted. This was as per procedure prescribed under Order 39, Rule 3. Open to the defendants to file application for vacating the same, or advance the same depending on urgency, no such application was filed. | Proved | |||||||
| 2. | That the judicial officer had not examined the witnesses present in court in se | |||||||||
(1) A Judicial Officer cannot pronounce concluding portion of his judgment in open court without entire text of judgment being prepared/dictated.(2) Requirement of a second show cause notice relating....
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
(1) Discharge from Post of Judicial Officer – Non-communication of ACRs to appellant is arbitrary.(2) Discharge from Post of Judicial Officer – When Government had, on enquiry, come to conclusion tha....
A disciplinary authority violates the principles of natural justice by proposing a specific penalty in a second show-cause notice before considering the delinquent official's reply to the enquiry rep....
: Authority competent to impose penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank alone is supposed to arrive at provisional conclusion in regard to penalty to be imposed after enquiry against Gover....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary actions against judicial officers must be based on concrete evidence and cannot be sustained on surmises or conjunctures.
Judicial officers must maintain impeccable integrity; disciplinary actions must be based on established misconduct without procedural violations and adhere to high standards of justice.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to ensuring due process was followed, not to reassess the proportionality of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must be based on some evidence, comply with natural justice, and ensure that the penalty is not disproportionate to t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
