TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide a notification dated 31.01.1995. 5. On certain allegations of gross misconduct, the respondent was placed under suspension by an order dated 25.01.2005, followed by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, with the issue of Charge Memos dated 23.03.2005 in DI No.2/2005; DI No.3/2005; DI No.4/2005 and DI No.5/2005. 6. Separate enquiries followed in connection with all the four Charge Memos namely DI Nos.2,3,4,5 of 2005, after the culmination of which, separate reports were submitted by the enquiry officer on 29.03.2007 and 27.04.2007. As per the enquiry reports, some charges stood proved and the other charges were not proved. 7. Therefore, second show cause notices were issued and thereafter the Full Court of the High Court of Karnataka resolved on 04.10.2008 to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent. Based on the resolution of the Full Court, an order of dismissal from service was passed by the Governor of Karnataka, vide order dated 19.03.2009. 8. Challenging the findings of the enquiry officer, the respondent filed a set of three writ petitions and challenging the order of dismissal from service, the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... spite of the witnesses having appeared and seeking to file applications for recalling of the warrants. Court was engaged in hearing other/old matters Not proved 4. That the judicial officer had entertained a criminal case and issued a non-bailable warrant to six witnesses and when the witnesses not appeared, did not examine them and ordered that the said witnesses be bound over and insisted that they file applications to recall the warrants. Court was engaged in hearing other/old matters. Not proved 5. That the judicial officer had granted bail to an accused in a case involving offences under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Forest offence - exclusively triable by magistrate. Not a violation of Section 86, 87 nor was it an ivory case. Was under Section, 104(A), bail was granted after hearing APP who was given opportunity to file objections. That evidence of the APP cannot be relied on has he is an interested witness, had reported an incident of misbehaviour of his after which contempt proceedings had been initiated against him, was now trying to falsely implicate him. Proved Inquiry numbered DI.3/2005 1. The judicial officer without preparing the text of the judgment h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... irregular in taking dictation, made mistakes, and admitted his shortcomings in a letter. Proved 4. That the judicial officer prepared the judgment in a civil suit on 5.2.2002 and it remained incomplete. Denied the charge. That vested interests may have played mischief by replacing the signed full judgment with partly printed judgment. No complaint from any persons. Fictitious person who filed the complaints. Stenographer new and unaccustomed to dictation. Proved 5. That the judicial officer pronounced the judgment in a civil suit on 23.10.2002 and a portion of the judgment was typed on the order-sheet and a formal judgment was prepared only six days later. Denied the charge. That vested interests like sheristedar may have played mischief by replacing the original judgment. No complaint from any persons. Present complainant is a fictitious person created by Somasekhar, the APP for revenge. Stenographer new and unaccustomed to dictation. Proved Inquiry numbered DI.4/2005 1. The judicial officer had, in a case involving offences punishable under the Karnataka Forest Act, at the instance of the counsel for the accused, preponed the case and granted bail and at the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e had affixed his signature due to oversight, should be pardoned for the lapses. Proved 11. It is seen that among the charges held proved, some related to the judicial orders passed by the respondent. Therefore, we are prepared straightaway, to ignore those charges and see whether the order of penalty of dismissal from service was justified qua the other charges and whether the Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside the same. 12. Once those charges which revolve around the manner of disposal of certain cases are ignored, what remains are certain serious charges that revolve around pronouncement of operative portion of the judgment in open court without the whole text of the judgment being ready. Take for instance, Charge Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in DI No.3/2005. These Charges are very serious in nature, where the respondent is alleged to have pronounced the operative portion of the judgment in open court without the whole of the judgment being ready. Similarly Charge No.1 in DI No.5/2005 related to the conduct of auction sale of properties, seized during the investigation. These are very serious in nature and the reply given by the respondent to these charges is w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lution of the Full Court of the High Court, the Court is obliged only to go by established parameters namely, (i) whether the charges stood proved; (ii) whether the findings of the inquiry officer are reasonable and probable and not perverse; (iii) whether the rules of procedure and the principles of natural justice have been followed; and (iv) whether the penalty is completely disproportionate, especially in the light of the gravity of the misconduct, his past record of service and any other extenuating circumstances. 18. Unfortunately, the High Court did not test the correctness of the order of penalty in this case, on the above parameters. Instead, the High Court has recorded a finding in Paragraph 26 of the impugned order, as though the learned judges had first hand information about the problems that the judicial officers faced at the lower level. The opinion of the High Court in Paragraph 26 of the impugned order that the acts of omission and commission attributed to the respondent do not constitute grave misconduct, is very-very curious. Adding fuel to fire, the High Court has recorded in Paragraph 36 of the impugned order that "dismissing him from service itself is very at....