2019 (4) TMI 246 - HC - Indian Laws

Commissioner (Appeals) rebuked for negligence & disrespect, Court imposes costs, petitioner's challenge upheld.

The High Court of Karnataka found a Commissioner (Appeals) negligent and disrespectful for disregarding Tribunal findings and not applying proper ... Imposition of exemplary cost - failure to initiation of disciplinary action - It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was wholly unaware of the pendency of the proceedings and nature of proceedings subsequent to his transfer - Opportunity of hearing - Held that:- It is deposed that the petitioner was not aware of the sentiments expressed by the Court nor was it ever intimated to him and that if he had been made known of the sentiments expressed by the Court, he would have taken immediate corrective steps and he further states that he has the highest regards for the order/direction issued by this Court. That at no point of time, he has ever intended to commit any defiance of the orders of this Court. He contends that neither the department nor the counsel appearing on behalf of the department have ever conveyed the sentiments of the Court. Hence he was not aware of the developments. It is contended that no notice was issued to him by this Court nor was he heard before passing strictures against him and imposing costs. Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST AND OTHERS, [2007 (1) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] to contend that the Courts must afford an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person before passing strictures against them. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is not controverted by the counsel for the respondents and a perusal of the records also does not indicate as to whether any notice was sent to the petitioner or that he was put on notice or that he was aware of the sentiments expressed by this court. The said observations rendered without affording opportunity to the petitioner are required to be struck off - Accordingly it is struck off. Issues: Judicial discipline, binding nature of higher forum orders, imposition of costs, opportunity of hearing before passing stricturesThe High Court of Karnataka dealt with a writ petition where the petitioner, a Commissioner (Appeals), faced scrutiny for adopting reasoning previously disapproved by the Tribunal (CESTAT) in passing orders. The Court noted the disregard for binding Tribunal findings and lack of application of mind by the petitioner. After the petitioner's transfer, another officer's statement raised concerns about judicial discipline. The Court found the petitioner's attitude negligent and disrespectful, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lakh for non-compliance within a month, directing disciplinary action if the costs were not paid. The petitioner challenged the cost imposition and disciplinary action directive in the writ petition.The Court emphasized the need for judicial discipline and adherence to higher forum orders. It observed that the petitioner's actions disregarded Tribunal findings, indicating a lack of application of mind. The Court highlighted concerns about the petitioner's negligent and disrespectful attitude, stressing the importance of upholding judicial discipline. The imposition of exemplary costs and the directive for disciplinary action aimed to address the petitioner's conduct.During the proceedings, the petitioner contended that he was unaware of the Court's sentiments post-transfer and had the highest regard for the Court's orders. He argued that he was not notified of the Court's concerns or given an opportunity to address them before strictures were passed. Citing legal precedent, the petitioner emphasized the necessity of affording a hearing before passing adverse remarks. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contentions and found no evidence of notice or awareness of the Court's sentiments, leading to the striking off of observations made without affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond.In light of the petitioner's arguments and legal principles, the Court recalled the imposition of costs and the expunging of certain remarks. It disposed of the writ petition based on the legal standards set by the Apex Court. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and the consequences of disregarding higher forum orders. The writ petition was concluded without costs, with the Court reiterating the significance of upholding judicial discipline to avoid chaos and maintain societal trust in public servants.