Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Aravind Kumar, J.
K.B. Lenkennavar – Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 5071/2012 (S-DE)
Decided On : 09.04.2013
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of K.B. Lenkennavar vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.:
Case Details and Parties * The case involves the Appellant, K.B. Lenkennavar (referred to as DJO - Delinquent Judicial Officer), who was dismissed from service as a District Judge. * The Respondents are the State of Karnataka and others. * The dismissal order was issued on 28.04.2009 by the Appointing Authority (Governor of Karnataka) based on the recommendation of the High Court of Karnataka. (!) (!) (!)
Charges and Inquiry Process * Nine charges were framed against the DJO on 06.09.2005 regarding financial misconduct, including unreported loans, cash deposits without declaring sources, and false information regarding assets. (!) (!) (!) * An Inquiring Authority (Justice R. Gururajan) was appointed, and after examining evidence, held that charges 1 to 6 were proved while charges 7 to 9 were not proved. (!) (!) (!) * The Administrative Committee-I accepted the inquiry report and initially recommended dismissal but later, in a meeting on 28.08.2008, recommended compulsory retirement as a lenient view after the DJO submitted a reply to a show-cause notice. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Decision Making and Appointing Authority * The Full Court of the High Court rejected the lenient view recommended by the Administrative Committee-I and resolved to confirm the punishment of dismissal due to the gravity of the proved charges. (!) (!) (!) (!) * The High Court's recommendation was forwarded to the Government and subsequently approved by the Governor of Karnataka (Appointing Authority) on 31.03.2009. (!) (!) (!) * There was a clerical error in an initial communication where Rule 8(vii) was cited instead of Rule 8(viii), which was clarified by the Registrar General before the final order was passed. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Petitioner's Contentions * The Petitioner challenged the order on the ground that the second show-cause notice issued was an "empty formality" because the Disciplinary Authority had already formed an opinion to impose dismissal, violating the principle of an open mind. (!) (!) (!) (!) * The Petitioner alleged that the Appointing Authority did not meaningfully consider the reply submitted to the second show-cause notice, claiming "total non-application of mind." (!) (!) (!) * The Petitioner also alleged prejudice due to the non-furnishing of certain documents sought during the inquiry, though records showed these were eventually provided. (!) (!) (!)
Court's Findings and Ruling * The Court held that the issuance of the second show-cause notice was not a pre-decisional hearing because the Administrative Committee-I accepted the Inquiry Report in its entirety, including the exoneration on charges 7 to 9, and the notice was issued as a matter of abundant caution following Supreme Court directives. (!) (!) (!) * The Court found that the Full Court properly exercised its power to accept or reject the recommendations of the Administrative Committee-I, and the decision-making process was valid. (!) (!) (!) * The Court rejected the claim of non-application of mind by the Appointing Authority, noting that the reply was considered and the decision was based on the Full Court's resolution. (!) (!) (!) * The Court found no evidence of prejudice caused by the alleged non-furnishing of documents, as the Petitioner had received the necessary documents and had not raised this issue effectively during the inquiry or reply stages. (!) (!) (!) (!) * The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the order of dismissal dated 28.04.2009 was affirmed. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as DJO - Delinquent Judicial Officer) was appointed to the post of District Judge in Sub-ordinate judiciary by direct recruitment on 15.05.1996. He was dismissed from services by invoking Rule 8 (viii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules) by order dated 28.04.2009 Annexure-J. DJO is seeking for quashing of the said order dated 28.04.2009 Annexure-J by issue of writ of certiorari and for consequential directions to the respondents to reinstate him into service with consequential service and monetary benefits by issue of writ of mandamus.
2. DJO was issued with articles of charges on 06.09.2005 Annexure-A by High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as Disciplinary Authority) Bangalore and nine charges were levelled against the DJO. On receipt of articles of charges DJO has submitted his written statement or reply to the articles of charge on 17.10.2005. Reply submitted by DJO to the charges, came to be considered by the Administrative Committee-I (AC-I) in its meeting held on 14.11.2005 and it was resolved to recommend to the full court to keep the DJO under suspension with immediate effect. Administrative Committee-I had also recommended appointment of Justice Sri. R. Gururajan as the inquiring authority. Said recommendation of Administrative Committee-I was accepted by full court in its meeting held on 23.11.2005. Accordingly DJO was placed under suspension with effect from 30.11.2005. High Court by notification dated 01.12.2005 appointed a sitting Judge of this court namely Justice Sri. R. Gururajan as inquiring authority to inquire into charges levelled against the DJO. Inquiry was held and on behalf of prosecution 12 witnesses were examined and 62 documents came to be marked. On behalf of DJO he got himself examined and got marked 27 documents. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and taking note of the arguments advanced by respective learned advocates appearing for the parties, inquiry authority held that charges 1 to 6 as proved and charges 7 to 9 were held as not proved by giving benefit of doubt to DJO. A report dated 30.04.2007 Annexure-E came to be submitted by inquiring authority to the competent authority. Said report came to be placed before the Administrative Committee-I which considered the report submitted by inquiring authority and agreed with the findings of the inquiring authority and accepted the report. Said committee was of the view that penalty of dismissal from service should be levied on DJO (under suspension) and it was resolved to issue a notice to delinquent officer in terms of Rule 11(A)(4) of CCA Rules, 1957.
3. Pursuant to the said resolution of Administrative Committee-I, a show cause notice was issued to DJO on 11.10.2007 whereunder the DJO has been notified that High court has decided to accept the report submitted by inquiry authority and had proposed to impose punishment of dismissal from service and as such called upon DJO to show cause as to why punishment of dismissal as per Rule 8(viii) of CCA Rules should not be imposed on him for proved misconduct. In reply to said show cause notice DJO submitted his statement on 26.10.2007 as per Annexure-G. Said reply came to be considered by Administrative Committee-I in its meeting held on 28.08.2008 and it was of the view that reply to the show cause notice submitted by DJO is not satisfactory and as such it was of the opinion that it is a fit case to confirm the proposed punishment. However, taking a lenient view in the matter it recommended for compulsory retirement under Rule 8(VI) of CCA Rules instead of dismissal and recommended the same to the full court. Full court in its meeting held on 04.10.2008 considered the reports and relevant material on record and resolved to confirm
gpt-4
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
