Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31282
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR R. NATARAJ, J
SRI. S.R. THULASIRAM DEAD BY HIS LRs – Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 47018 OF 2015 (S-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA
For the Respondents: SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE
Judicial officers must uphold integrity and professionalism; dismissal is reserved for severe misconduct adversely affecting integrity, with alternative penalties considered based on circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Disciplinary proceedings against a Judicial Officer - The petitioner challenged his dismissal from service for misconduct including alcohol consumption during court hours and irregularities in judicial duties. The inquiry found some charges proved while others were not. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Judicial conduct - A punitive measure of dismissal must align with the nature and gravity of misconduct. The court modified the dismissal to compulsory retirement, balancing the misconduct with the absence of tangible evidence of integrity compromise. Findings assert the officer's health concerns contributed to his behavior. (Paras 27-28)
(C)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the findings of the Disciplinary Authority regarding the charges and considered the impact of the penalty on the petitioner's dependents, modifying the dismissal to compulsory retirement for just compensation. (Paras 28)
(D) Issues addressed: The court examined whether the inquiry's evidence sufficiently proved misconduct, the appropriateness of dismissal, and alternatives considering the petitioner's personal circumstances. (E)
Ratio Decidendi: Penalties should be proportionate to proven misconduct, ensuring that dismissal is reserved for actions compromising integrity or professionalism, particularly in judicial roles. (Para 28) (F)
Result: The petition is partially allowed, modifying dismissal to compulsory retirement, mandating the settlement of terminal benefits within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of high court and service dismissal grounds (Para 1) |
| 2. details of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments against the charges (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. respondent's rebuttal and evidence against petitioner (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's assessment of evidence presented (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. corroborative witness testimonies and investigation report (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. legal standard for imposing disciplinary penalties (Para 25) |
| 8. modification of disciplinary action and implications for dependents (Para 26) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner (since deceased) has challenged an order bearing No.LAW.84.LAC.2015, Bengaluru dated 14.07.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 (stated as respondent No.1 in the prayer portion of the petition), by which he was dismissed from service under sub-rule (viii) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner contends that he was selected and appointed by the respondent No.2 as a Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) on 18.10.1993 and was thereafter promoted as a Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) on 28.05.2003. While he was working as Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., at Chintamani, the respondent No.1 on the basis of a report of the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka, dated 22.07.2007, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, by serving Articles of charge dated 14/15.10.2008. The petitioner submitted his provisional reply and denied the charges leveled against him. He thereafter submitted an additional reply to the Articles of charge. The respondent No.1 was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and therefore, appointed the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura as Inquiring Authority in terms of an order dated 01.09.2010. The Presenting Officer examined PWs.1 to 23 and marked documents - Exs.P1 to P41. The petitioner, in support of his defence, examined three witnesses as DWs.1 to 3. The petitioner was examined as DW.4 and he marked documents as Exs.D1 to D11. The Inquiring Authority recorded the plea of the petitioner and called upon him and the Presenting Officer to submit their respective defence pleadings. Following this, the Inquiring Authority submitted its report on 02.06.2014 holding that charge Nos.2, 5 and 12 were not proved and the other charges were proved. A copy of the report was enclosed with the second show cause notice dated 05.12.2014. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why a major penalty should not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 26.12.2014 and requested to exonerate him of the charges and to drop all further proceedings. The report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the second show cause notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner were placed before the Full Court for consideration. The Full Court vide its proceedings dated 27.04.2015, resolved to recommend dismissal of the petitioner from service. Following this, the respondent No.1 sent a proposal to the State Government to take further action. Consequent thereto, the respondent No.2 by an order dated 14.07.2015, dismissed the petitioner from service.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that some of the charges against the petitioner were proved is perverse in as much as the Inquiring Authority did not appreciate the evidence of the petitioner led in his defence. That the disciplinary proceedings were held on the basis of a complaint lodged by an Advocate (Mr. Karunakar Ameena) and also on the basis of an anonymous complaint said to have been filed by the members of the Mangalore Bar Association. He conte
