Significantly, the Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a Civil Judge who was in habit of pronouncing the operative part/ outcome of judgment without preparing the entire text for it and pass the blame to his stenographer.
The Division Bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal set aside the Karnataka High Court order quashing the administrative decision of the full court to dismiss the said judge noting that the defence raised is 'unacceptable'.
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 1995. 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.
Separate enquiries followed in connection with all four Charge Memos and as per the enquiry reports, some charges stood proved and the other charges were not proved. 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.
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.
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.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Court at the outset noted that among the charges held proved, some related to the judicial orders passed by the respondent, and therefore, 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.
The Court was thus left to ascertain certain serious charges that revolve around the pronouncement of the operative portion of the judgment in open court without the whole text of the judgment being ready.
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 and reply given is very wishy-washy, it prima-facie noted.
The Court was bewildered as to how the findings with regard to such serious charges have been completely white-washed by the High Court in the impugned judgment and noted pronouncing judgments in such a fashion is not suitable for a Judge.
"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", the court observed.
It added that 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, condonable conduct", it remarked.
The Court admitted 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 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.
The Court tore into the defense raised by the respondent-judge and stated that if the entire blame lay upon the stenographer, it was for him to have summoned the stenographer as a witness and pointed out that the High Court reverse the burden of proof.
"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." it noted.
The Court further clarified that 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,
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 court observed.
"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", the Court added.
With regard to the citation of the Supreme Court decision in H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Dahiya [NOVEMBER 18, 2016], the court clarified that it 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.
The Court mentioned that it has 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 appeals were accordingly allowed.
CASE TITLE: The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Sri M. Narasimha Prasad
CASE DETAILS: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.s 25714-17 OF 2019
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V Ramasubramanian and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
CITATION: 2023 Latest Caselaw 286 SC
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. Premnath Mishra, Adv. Mr. Geet Rajan Ahuja, Adv.
Advocates for Respondent: Mrs. T S Shanthi, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
