THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA & ANR VERSUS SRI M. NARASIMHA PRASAD

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA & ANR  VERSUS SRI M. NARASIMHA PRASAD 


Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 25714-17 OF 2019)
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA & ANR. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SRI M. NARASIMHA PRASAD …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Leave granted.
2. Challenging a common order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Karnataka, setting aside a penalty of dismissal
from service imposed upon the respondent herein, who happened
to be a Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Registrar General of the
High Court of Karnataka has come up with the above appeals.
3. We have heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior
counsel appearing the appellant-High Court and Ms. Anitha
Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
2
4. The respondent was appointed 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.
3
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 respondent filed a separate
writ petition. All these writ petitions were dismissed by a learned
Judge, through a common order dated 30.11.2011.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed intra-court
appeals. Those appeals were allowed by the Division Bench of the
High Court by a very strange order, not only setting aside the order
of penalty and the findings of the enquiry officer but also directing
that no further inquiry can be held against the respondent. It is
against such a common order passed in a batch of four intra-court
appeals that the Registrar General of the High Court has come up
with these civil appeals.
10. Before we proceed to consider the correctness of the view
taken by the High Court, in the light of the rival contentions, it will
be useful to extract in a tabular column the charges framed
against the respondent under each of the Charge Memos; his reply
to each of the charges and the findings of the enquiry officer in
respect of those charges.
4
Charges against the Judicial Officer
S.
No.
Charge Reply to Charge Held to be
proved/not
proved by the
Inquiry Officer
Inquiry DI.2/2005
1. That the judicial officer
had granted an order of
status quo on an
interlocutory
application for
temporary injunction
in a civil suit and had
further granted an exparte order of
temporary injunction
in yet another civil.
suit against the State,
which was represented
by the defendants in
violation of Section
80(2) of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
First suit- Absence of the
AGP (Mallaraja Gowda) on
several occasions. Case was
not adjourned
unnecessarily. Within two
months, the interim
injunction granted was
vacated.
Second suit- Case of
forcible eviction.
Plaintiff had shown prima
facie case, therefore order of
status quo had been
granted. This was as per
procedure prescribed under
Order 39, Rule 3. Open to
the defendants to file
application for vacating the
same, or advance the same
depending on urgency, no
such application was filed.
Proved
2. That the judicial officer
had not examined the
witnesses present in
court in several cases
and was merely
adjourning the same
even though it was
possible for him to
have recorded the
evidence of those
witnesses.
Court was engaged in hearing
other cases, and engaged in
Lok Adalat.
Not proved
3. That the judicial,
officer had issued
bailable and nonbailable warrants to
witnesses in spite of
the witnesses in spite
of the witnesses having
appeared and seeking
Court was engaged in hearing
other/old matters
Not proved
5
to file applications for
recalling of the
warrants.
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
had pronounced the
operative portion of
the judgment in open
court and that the
judgment was a
actually prepared later.
Denied the charge. Stated that
he had never pronounced a
single judgment without
dictating it in its entirety. He
had a new stenographer, who
was not in the habit of
maintaining the stenographer
book, frequently made
mistakes and was irregular in
taking dictation. The
stenographer had admitted his
shortcomings in a letter
annexed to the reply, had
resigned from service later.
Stenographer was a novice,
Proved
6
was negligent and inefficient in
his work. Text had several
typographical errors, on
several occasions needed
retyping. Inefficiency of
stenographer, several memos
issued to him, he had
tendered apology in writing.
No complaints from the parties
in any of the cases, the
complainant set up by
Somasekhar and Mallaraja
Gowda to falsely implicate
him.
Allegations pertain to three
suits- two were money suits
where no written statement
was filed and defendants place
ex-parte.
Third suit, the judgment had
been dictated, transcribed and
pronounced in court. The text
contained several mistakes
and stenographer had been
directed to retype the same.
Signed judgment was kept in
an almirah, key was with the
stenographer, that he had
deliberately reproduced the
typed unsigned text instead of
the signed judgment, was
aiding the two advocatestrying to falsely implicate him.
2. That he had
pronounced the
judgment in a civil
suit on 09.10.2002
whereas the
judgment was
actually dictated on
11.10.2002 which
remained unsigned
by the judicial officer.
Denied the charge. Had
dictated judgment well in
advance and signed it.
Claimed that some mischief
may have been played by
vested interests. There was no
complaint from litigants/ on
advocates in this matter.
That the present complainant
is a fictitious person who is
not a party in any of the cases
mentioned, created by
Advocate Somashekhar and
the Assistant Public
Prosecutor to take revenge
against him.
Stenographer was also new
and not accustomed to taking
Proved
7
dictation, had admitted his
shortcomings.
3. That the judicial officer
prepared the judgment
in O.S.31/2001 but did
not sign the judgment.
Denied the charge. That he
signed all judgments before
pronouncement. There was
never any complaint against
him to this effect. That vested
interests acting against him.
His stenographer was new and
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
request of the
Additional Public
Prosecutor, the case
Somasekhar was the advocate
appearing for the two accused,
had a grievance against him.
Conditional bail had been
granted, application for
cancellation of bail was filed,
and counsel appearing for the
accused did not refute
allegations in the application
on their failure to comply with
the conditions, Did not file
objections in writing or raise
Proved
8
was again preponed
and thereafter an order
was issued for nonbailable warrant to the
accused.
any objections orally.
Non-bailable warrant issued in
the interests of justice, acted
in good faith.
2. The judicial officer did
not pass orders in a
criminal case on the
application filed u/s
457 of Cr.P.C. and
released all the
properties.
Counter-claim by complainant
and accused for release of
same property, therefore did
not pass any order, and case
was to be taken for enquiry or
for trial
Not proved
3. The judicial officer did
not allow Somashekar,
Advocate for the
accused to examine a
witness in a criminal
case.
That the advocate started to
put irrelevant questions to the
witness, even though warned
many times. When he
persisted, case was adjourned
Not proved
4. Application filed by
Somashekar, Advocate
who was not called out,
but to the dismay of
the advocate, it was
found that the case
had been adjourned
earlier in the day
without indicating any
reasons.
Not proved
Inquiry numbered DI.5/2005
1. The judicial officer had
brought properties for
sale in public auction
in criminal cases and
while having brought
to auction certain
articles like choppers,
sickles, etc. had not
placed teak-wood
plants and a motor
cycle for such auction.
But however, had
recorded that the same
was sold at auction to
one Linga Raju who
was related to court
typist and this
apparently was done in
the chambers of the
judge. While it was also
alleged that the
appellant had not
prepared the estimated
value of the properties
Account shreistedar and
property clerk involved in
preparing the sale list - all
ground work done by these
officers.
These material witnesses were
not examined.
Motor cycle was old, parked in
the open thus exposed to rain/
sunlight for more than 6
months - sold for Rs. 7000/-.
Sheristedar misplaced auction
records and thereafter tried to
falsely implicate him to save
himself.
If subordinates had done
something and he had affixed
his signature due to oversight,
should be pardoned for the
lapses.
Proved
9
before the same were
sold.
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 wishy washy.
10
13. A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of
his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment
being prepared/dictated. All that the respondent has done in the
departmental enquiry is just to pass on the responsibility to the
inefficient and allegedly novice stenographer. We do not know how
the findings with regard to such serious charges have been
completely white-washed by the High Court in the impugned
judgment.
14. A look at the impugned judgment of the High Court shows
that the Division Bench of the High Court was swayed away
unduly by the animosity attributed by the respondent to a member
of the local Bar and the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Let us
assume for a minute that the charges were on the basis of
complaints initiated by persons bearing ill-will and motive against
the respondent. Even then, such ill-will and motive may not make
the conduct of the respondent in not preparing judgments but
pronouncing the outcome of the case, a condonable conduct.
15. It is true that some of the charges revolve around judicial
pronouncements and the judicial decision-making processes and
that they cannot per se, without anything more, form the
foundation for departmental proceedings. Therefore, we are
11
ignoring those charges. But the charges which revolve around
gross negligence and callousness on the part of the respondent in
not preparing/dictating judgments, but providing a fait accompli,
is completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer.
16. The defence taken by the respondent that the lack of
experience and the inefficiency on the part of the stenographer has
to be blamed, for the whole text of the judgment not getting ready
even after several days of pronouncement of the result in open
court, was entirely unacceptable. But unfortunately, the High
Court not only accepted this panchatantra story, but also went to
the extent of blaming the administration for not examining the
stenographer as a witness. Such an approach is wholly
unsustainable. If it was the case of the respondent that the entire
blame lay upon the stenographer, it was for him to have
summoned the stenographer as a witness. The High Court
unfortunately reversed the burden of proof.
17. While considering a challenge to an order of penalty imposed
upon a judicial officer pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings
followed by a resolution 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
12
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 atrocious”. Such a finding is nothing
but a veiled attack on the Full Court of the High Court. After
holding so, the High Court has gone to the extent of certifying the
respondent as an innocent and honest officer. We do not know
wherefrom the High Court came to such a conclusion.
13
19. One more reason articulated in the impugned order of the
High Court is that the second show cause notice indicated the
penalty proposed and that therefore, the same was contrary to law.
In this regard the High Court placed reliance upon the decision of
this Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Limited vs. Mahesh Dahiya1
.
20. But the decision of this Court in Himachal Pradesh State
Electricity Board Limited (supra), is one where the disciplinary
authority-cum-whole time members of the Electricity Board were
found to have formed an opinion to impose a major penalty even
before forwarding the copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent.
But in this case the Full Court of the High Court did not consider
the enquiry report and did not take a decision in advance to
impose the penalty of removal from service.
21. As a matter of fact, the history of evolution of law relating to
second show cause notice is almost forty years old. The
requirement of a second show cause notice relating to the
proposed penalty was removed from Article 311 of the Constitution
by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. The same was
upheld by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India
1 (2017) 1 SCC 768
14
and Anr. vs. Tulsiram Patel2
. However, a two-member Bench of
this Court opened a small window in Union of India and Ors. vs.
E. Bashyan3
, which led to the decision in Union of India and
Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan4
, wherein this Court held that the
opportunity to respond to the findings of the inquiry officer is
different from the opportunity to respond to the penalty proposed.
Eventually, the issue got clarified in The Managing Director,
ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. B. Karunakar and Ors.5
.
22. It is not the case of the respondent that the Full Court of the
High Court took a decision to impose the penalty of dismissal from
service even before furnishing the copies of the enquiry reports to
the respondent. The show cause notices enclosing the enquiry
reports, are dated 11.10.2007. The representations made by the
respondent are dated 26.10.2007. It is only thereafter that the
Administrative Committee No.1 considered the matter on
28.08.2008 and it was placed before the Full Court on 04.10.2008.
Therefore, the opinion of the High Court that the second show
2 (1985) 3 SCC 398
3 (1988) 2 SCC 196
4 (1991) 1 SCC 588
5 (1993) 4 SCC 727
15
cause notices were in violation of the principles of natural justice
is not factually and legally correct.
23. We have not come across a case where the High Court, while
setting aside an order of penalty has held that there shall not be
any further inquiry against the delinquent. But in this case, the
High Court has done exactly the same, creating a new
jurisprudence. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the
High Court reads as follows:-
“Writ Appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.10756/2009 &
11030-32 of 2009 (S.DIS) dated 30.11.2011 is hereby
set aside. Punishment order dismissing the appellant
from service is hereby quashed. All Inquiry reports are
quashed. There shall not be any further enquiry
against the appellant. The appellant is to be treated
as if he had been in service till the date of
superannuation and pay all consequential monetary
benefits with interest at 8% p.a. The compliance shall
be within a period of three months.”
24. For all the above reasons, the appeals are liable to be
allowed. Accordingly, they are allowed and the impugned order of
the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The order of
penalty imposed upon the respondent is upheld and the writ
petitions filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. No costs.
…………………………….. J.
(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)
16
..………………………….. J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)
New Delhi;
April 10, 2023

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

Atal Pension Yojana-(APY Chart) | अटल पेंशन योजना