Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.V. Narasimhan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Raghavendra G. Gayathri, AGA

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. (!) (!) (!) (!)