JUDGMENT :

The appellant has filed the present appeals challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2011 passed in W P Nos.10756/2009 & 11030-32/2009 (S-DIS) and prayed for allowing the writ petitions as prayed for. The writ petitions were filed by the appellant seeking for the following reliefs:

“To call for records and examine the same and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing Inquiry Reports in DI-2/2005 at Annexure-N, DI-3/2005 at Annexure-O, DI-4/2005 at Annexure-P, DI-5/2005 at Annexure-Q, and resolution of the High Court of Karnataka to impose the penalty of dismissal from service and the Government order dated 19.03.2009 at Annexure-A passed by His Excellency Governor of Karnataka and grant such other reliefs.

By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions.

2. The facts of the case are that appellant was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the year 1995 and he was put on probation. The probationary period of the appellant was declared to have been satisfactorily completed by the notification dated 17.04.2001.

3. While appellant was working as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Heggadadevanakote from 28.05.2001 to 22.05.2003, two persons namely, Sri Somashekar, an advocate and one Sri Mallarajegowda, APP, are said to have shown disrespect to the appellant and the Court. Ultimately, the appellant made a report to this Court for proceeding under Contempt of Court proceedings. The conduct of Sri Somashekar, advocate was condemned by the Advocates Association by passing a resolution on 02.07.2002.

4. In pursuance of the complaint on 22.01.2003 made to the first respondent, contempt proceedings was initiated against Sri Somashekar, Advocate in CCC (Criminal) No.77/2002 and the proceedings came to be dropped by the order dated 18.03.2003 after accepting an unconditional apology tendered by Sri Somashekar, advocate, in the open Court.

5. When the appellant was transferred to CMM Court, Bengalure and which he was working as Deputy Registrar, four articles of charge, all dated 23.3.2005 were served on the appellant, in Nos.DI-2/2005 to DI-5/2005. The appellant was placed under suspension.

6. The Enquiry Officer submitted report and based on the report, the respondent issued a second show cause notice, calling for reply/explanation by the appellant stating therein that he is guilty as per the report and decided to punish him with dismissal from service. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has made a detailed reply, but without considering the same, impugned order Annexure-Q has been issued, which His Excellency Governor of Karnataka has confirmed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted at the threshold that none of the charges warrant departmental inquiry against him. The procedural lapses and even a wrong conclusion and judgment cannot be a subject matter of departmental inquiry. In this respect, several citations are referred, to which reference would be made at a later part of this judgment. It is submitted, Departmental Inquiries were initiated at the instance of two persons who showed disrespect to the appellant as well as to the Court, against one of whom, a criminal contempt case was initiated and it was dropped, accepting his unconditional apology. It is submitted, initiation of four departmental enquiries itself demonstrates non-application of mind by the respondent. If at all, the appellant has committed various irregularities, relating to his working as a Judicial Officer, one Departmental Inquiry could have been initiated. Initiation of four departmental inquiries has virtually deprived the appellant to prepare for the enquiry. Evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. The second show cause notice issued is not a purposive one to seek explanation/reply from the appellant, evaluate the same with report of the inquiry officer and then to arrive at a conclusion whether to accept t