Disciplinary dismissal of a judicial officer upheld where serious proved misconduct and valid second show cause notice supported the penalty.

Proved serious misconduct by a judicial officer, including pronouncing operative portions of judgments before the full text was prepared and irregular handling of auction-sale matters, justified dismissal where the enquiry was fair, the findings were not perverse, and natural justice was observed. The Court held that the explanation blaming the stenographer was unsupported and that the conduct was unbecoming of a judicial officer. It also held that the High Court erred in treating the misconduct as non-grave, in finding bias or procedural illegality in the second show cause notice, and in barring further inquiry. The dismissal remained operative and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disciplinary findings against the judicial officer and the penalty of dismissal from service were sustainable; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal on the grounds of alleged bias, procedural infirmity in the second show cause notice, and in barring further inquiry.

Issue (i): Whether the disciplinary findings against the judicial officer and the penalty of dismissal from service were sustainable.

Analysis: The proved charges that remained after excluding matters relating purely to judicial decision-making concerned serious misconduct, including pronouncing the operative portion of judgments without the full text being prepared and irregular handling of auction-sale matters. In disciplinary review of a judicial officer, the relevant questions are whether the charges were proved, whether the enquiry findings were reasonable and not perverse, whether natural justice was followed, and whether the punishment was disproportionate. The record did not support the explanation that the omissions were attributable to the stenographer, and the conduct was held unbecoming of a judicial officer.

Conclusion: The penalty of dismissal from service was held to be justified and was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal on the grounds of alleged bias, procedural infirmity in the second show cause notice, and in barring further inquiry.

Analysis: The High Court was found to have approached the matter on improper considerations, treated the misconduct as non-grave without applying the settled disciplinary parameters, and wrongly shifted the burden to the administration to examine the stenographer. The second show cause notice was held not to be contrary to law because the disciplinary authority had not pre-decided the punishment before considering the enquiry reports and representations. The direction that no further inquiry could be held was found to be unwarranted in law.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was set aside and its conclusions on bias, natural justice, and bar on further inquiry were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary penalty remained operative, and the respondent's writ petitions stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer, proved serious misconduct may warrant dismissal where the enquiry is fair and the findings are not perverse, and a second show cause notice is valid if the punishment has not been pre-decided before consideration of the enquiry report and reply.

---