Karanam Chiranjeevulu vs The High Court Of Judicature At ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3081 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
       HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                  WRIT PETITION No.35983 of 2018

Karanam Chiranjeevulu, S/o. late Lingaiah, aged about 53 years, Occ: Ex.
Senior Civil Judge, presently R/o.Door No.23-15-84 A, G.S. Raju Road,
S.N. Puram, Vijayawada, Krishna District

                                                              ... Petitioner

                                   Versus

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and
the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, represented by its Registrar
(Vigilance), and another
                                                          ... Respondents
                              ORDER

Dt.12.05.2023

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

The petitioner, a Senior Civil Judge (removed from service), would

challenge the action of the 1st respondent, High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in

recommending the 2nd respondent, State of Andhra Pradesh, to impose

penalty of removal from service and thereby the 2nd respondent issuing

G.O.Ms.No.107 (Courts.A) Department dated 21.06.2017, imposing major

penalty of removing him from judicial service, as arbitrary, illegal, in

violation of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and

consequently to set aside the said G.O. and reinstate him into judicial

service with all consequential benefits.

                                        2                                HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                                W.P.No.35983 of 2018

2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Civil Judge on 16.05.1998

and promoted to the post of Senior Civil Judge on 16.12.2010. At the

relevant time, when he was working as Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, he

was suspended on 11.08.2016, on the ground that one Kanagala Suri

Babu of Makkpet village, lodged a complaint to the effect that when the

petitioner was working as Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, he was dealing

with O.S.No.61 of 2008, wherein one of the parties Yedlapalli Ravi was

allegedly not granted proper opportunity to prosecute the case and the

petitioner imposed multiple costs besides passing stringent orders. The

High Court obtained report from Principal District Judge, Krishna,

Machilipatnam. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief

Justice of the High Court on 13.11.2014, stating that before ordering

warning, no opportunity was given to him. However, the representation

was rejected. Thereafter, based on the report of the Principal District

Judge dated 30.04.2014 and the High Court proceedings issued in order

ROC No.2040/2014-VIGILANCE CELL dated 16.12.2015 communicating

the articles of charges and the written statement filed by the petitioner on

11.02.2016, departmental enquiry was constituted on 29.08.2016 in ROC

No.2040/2014. The enquiry was constituted on the following charges:

"ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.1:

That you Sri K. Chiranjeevulu, Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, while working as Senior Civil Judge, 3 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

Nandigama, Krishna District, during the trial in the suit in O.S.No.61/2008, filed by Sri Yadlapalli Ravi, you imposed multiple costs, at various stages, from time to time i.e., from 02-09-2011 to till its disposal on 24-04-2013, besides passing stringent steps, thus without giving neither reasonable opportunity nor ample time to prosecute the case properly by the plaintiff, acted with a prejudiced mind and vindictive towards plaintiff, which a judicial officer ought not to have done, which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules 1964.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.2:

That you Sri K. Chiranjeevulu, Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, while working as Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, on 17-04-2013, when Sri Yadlapali Ravi, being the plaintiff in O.S.No.61/2008, filed a petition in Ia.No.225/2013, praying the court not to pronounce the judgment in OS.No.61/2008 and transfer the case to some other court, you disposed of the said petition on the same day, holding him guilty under Section 345 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 228 IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and thus acted with a prejudiced mind and vindictive towards plaintiff, which a judicial officer ought not to have done, which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules 1964.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.3:

                                4                               HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                       W.P.No.35983 of 2018

That you Sri K. Chiranjeevulu, Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur district, while working as Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna district, on the petition dated 22-04-2013 of Sri Yadlapalli Ravi, plaintiff in O.S.No.61/2008, addressed to the High Court, marking copy thereof to the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nandigama, requesting not to pronounce the judgment in O.S.No.61/2008, you, suo motu, got the same registered vide I.A.No.242/2013 and dismissed the petition on 24-04- 2013, with exemplary costs of Rs.30,000/-, after holding the petitioner guilty under Contempt of Courts Act and in default sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in civil prison, thus, even without giving notice to the affected party, acted with a prejudiced mind and vindictive towards plaintiff, contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act and detriment to the interest of the plaintiff, which a judicial officer ought not to have done, which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.4:

That you Sri K. Chiranjeevulu, Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur district, while working as Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, having aggrieved against the orders of the High Court, dated 13-03-2015, rejecting your request to expunge the warning administered upon, you submitted a representation, dated 10-04-2015, wherein, while giving out the grounds for review/revision at para 2(1) of Page 2, chose to make certain aversions as "the Hon'ble District did not apply his 5 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

mind to the case facts and question of law involved in the matter", which is uncalled for and unwarranted and acted in a most insubordinate manner, degrading the image and decorum of judiciary, which act of yours, if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct, and unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.5:

That you Sri K. Chiranjeevulu, Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur district, while working as Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna district, had directly addressed review/revision petition, dated 10-04-2015 in the name of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and sent copy thereof to the Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy, the then Portfolio Judge of Krishna district, in utter disobedience to the High Court's circular instructions issued in Roc.No.3240/84-B.Spl.(6), dated 07-07-1984 and Roc.No.300/90-B.Spl, dated 18-01-1990, which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1964."

3. The above charges were sought to be proved on the basis of

documents, the list of which is provided in Annexure II of the charge

memo and the statement of witnesses at Annexure III, who were later on

examined as follows:

"P.W.1: Sri Yadlapalli Ravi, S/o. Late Surya Rao, R/o. Balusupadu village, Jaggaiahpeta Mandal, Krishna District.

                                        6                               HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                               W.P.No.35983 of 2018

P.W.2: Sri Tanikonda Chiranjeevi, Advocate and counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.61/2008

P.W.3: Sri A.V.L.V. Prasasd, Junior Assistant (now transferred to Srikakulam district), dealt with the case record in OS.No.61/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judges Court, Nandigama, Krishna district, from 01-01-2009 to 16-02-2012.

P.W.4: Sri B. Lalu, Senior Assistant, (now retired from service), dealt with the case record in OS.No.61/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judges Court, Nandigama, Krishna District, from 17- 02-2012 to 29-07-2012.

P.W.5: Sri M. Raghu Ram, Junior Assistant (now working in Mahila Court, Vijayawada), dealt with the case record in OS.No.61/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judges Court, Nandigama, Krishna District, from 30-07-2012 to 17-09-2014.

P.W.6: Sri G. Chakradhara Rao, former Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, now retired from service.

P.W.7: Sri S. Jagannadham, former Registrar (Vigilance), now District (Enquiries), High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad."

4. After closure of evidence on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the

petitioner was required to file his statement of defence and list of

witnesses. He examined himself as D.W.1 and was allowed to engage an

Advocate to defend his case. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry

officer found all the charges to be proved against the petitioner.

                                      7                              HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                            W.P.No.35983 of 2018

5. In respect of Charge Nos.1 and 2, the enquiry officer found that the

petitioner acted with a prejudiced mind and was vindictive towards the

plaintiff in O.S.No.61 of 2008, which a judicial officer ought not to have

done and the same amounts to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a

judicial officer.

6. The gist of Charge No.3 was to the effect that the petitioner has

illegally punished the plaintiff under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and

imposed punishment and fine of Rs.30,000/-; in default, to undergo

simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner has ordered this,

when the plaintiff moved a petition on 22.04.2013 requesting him not to

pronounce judgment as the matter is pending in the High Court.

However, the petitioner suo motu got the said copy of the petition

registered as I.A.No.242 of 2013 and dismissed the same with exemplary

costs of Rs.30,000/- after holding the plaintiff guilty under the Contempt

of Courts Act, 1971 and also passed order to the effect that in default of

payment of costs, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Thus, even without giving any notice to the affected party, the petitioner

acted with a prejudiced mind and was vindictive towards the plaintiff.

7. In his defence to Charge No.3, the petitioner stated that he has

passed orders in the petition filed by the plaintiff by virtue of High Court

proceedings in Roc.No.226/SO/2011 dated 19.02.2011, communicating 8 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

the orders in W.P.No.556 of 2010 in which the complainant addressed a

letter to the Registrar (Judicial) and that the Principal District Judge,

Krishna addressed false report against him. According to the petitioner,

the civil court is having unlimited power to determine the quantum of

costs whenever situation demands and the said imposition of costs is in

accordance with Section 35 CPC. It is further stated by him that the

pecuniary jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge as on the date is Rs.10 lakh,

whereas the costs imposed are Rs.30,000/- and the same is well within his

pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.10 lakh. According to him, he has not acted

under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but has only recorded a finding

while dismissing the application that the attitude of the party is

contemptuous.

8. It is to be seen that the subject letter was not addressed to the

petitioner, but, it was submitted before the High Court and a copy was

marked to the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, which was registered as

I.A.No.242 of 2013. Thus, the plaintiff only wanted to inform the Court of

Senior Civil Judge that he has submitted a petition in the High Court.

However, this action of the plaintiff was treated to be scandalising the

court and the same was dismissed with abnormal costs of Rs.30,000/-; in

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the enquiry

report, it was observed that the civil court can order for recovery of the

amount of costs by treating the same as a decree of civil court, but it 9 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

cannot directly impose punishment of imprisonment in default of payment

of costs. Referring to Section 35 and 35-A of CPC, the enquiry officer

observed that costs incurred by the parties during the course of

conducting the suit or other proceedings, can be imposed whereas

compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claim or defences even

under Section 35-A of CPC, cannot exceed Rs.3,000/-. However, in the

case in hand, the petitioner imposed costs of Rs.3,000/- which was neither

permissible under Section 35 nor under Section 35-A; thus, charge No.3

was also found proved.

9. Insofar as charge No.4 is concerned, the enquiry officer held that

petitioner's statement in the representation submitted to the Hon'ble Chief

Justice that the report of the Principal District Judge is false and that the

District Judge did not apply his mind, is uncalled for and unwarranted. His

effort to allege bias and insinuation against the Principal District Judge

amounts to insubordination, degrading the image and decorum of the

Judiciary, which, in turn, amounts to grave misconduct and unbecoming of

a Judicial Officer.

10. With regard to charge No.5, it is found that the petitioner's act of

addressing letter directly to the Hon'ble Chief Justice is in utter

disobedience of the High Court Circular Instructions issued in

Roc.No.3240/84-B.Spl.6 dated 07.07.1984 and Roc.300/90.B.Spl., dated 10 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

18.01.1990. The petitioner has raised a peculiar defence to this charge by

submitting that when the circular instructions dated 07.07.1984 and

18.01.1990 were issued, he was studying Law or was practicing as an

Advocate; therefore, he has no knowledge about those circulars and that

the representation was sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice through Registrar

(Vigilance); therefore, it is not in violation of the circular instructions.

Ex.P.8 is the letter sent to the Chief Justice and Ex.P.14 is the copy of the

circular instructions dated 07.07.1984. Ex.P.15 is the circular dated

18.01.1990. The petitioner, who is a Senior Civil Judge, has not denied

the existence of the circular. His defence that he is not aware of the

circular is very strange, as every Judicial Officer is supposed to have

knowledge of the circular instructions issued by the High Court, which deal

with the procedure for making representation. It is the duty of a Judicial

Officer to verify the circular instructions in respect of making

representation even if he is not aware personally. Not only the petitioner

addressed letter to the Chief Justice, but also sent a copy of the same to

Justice R. Subhash Reddy, the then Portfolio Judge, Krishna District, which

act of the petitioner is in utter disobedience of the circulars issued by the

High Court.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that correctness of

judicial orders cannot be a subject matter of disciplinary enquiry and that

the petitioner has been punished only for the reason that he sent a letter 11 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

directly to the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It is further argued that, in any case,

the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to

the gravity of the charges inasmuch as the punishment of removal from

service is too harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned

counsel would refer to the order passed by the High Court in

C.R.P.No.1741 of 2013, wherein the High Court has upheld the order

passed by the petitioner refusing to accept the plaintiff's request to recall

the witness. It is further argued that Charge No.4 does not constitute

unwarranted exercise of power under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

and the petitioner has imposed costs in accordance with law. Learned

counsel would submit that Charge No.5 pertaining to disobedience of

Circular Instructions issued by the High Court in Roc.No.3240/84-B.Spl.6

dated 07.07.1984 and Roc.300/90.B.Spl., dated 18.01.1990, is not made

out, as the petitioner is not aware of the said circular instructions. Lastly,

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that enquiry officer has

recorded illegal and perverse findings and the report is one-sided and

biased. Learned counsel would refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Krishna Prasad Verma (dead) through L.Rs. v.

State of Bihar and others - (2019) 10 SCC 640 and Ishwar Chand

Jain v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another - (1988) 3

SCC 370.

                                     12                              HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                            W.P.No.35983 of 2018

12. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent and

learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent would

submit that the petitioner was involved in committing serious misconduct

while working as Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama and has also violated

Circular Instructions issued by the High Court in Roc.No.3240/84-B.Spl.6

dated 07.07.1984 and Roc.300/90.B.Spl., dated 18.01.1990. It is also

argued that the order passed by the petitioner while rejecting I.A.No.242

of 2013 in O.S.No.61 of 2008, which, in fact was a letter and not an

application moved by the plaintiff in the suit, and imposing costs while

exercising contempt jurisdiction, is in violation of Sections 5, 9 and 10 of

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

13. In the course of hearing, this Court summoned the original record

of the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and perused the said

record, the material papers and additional material papers submitted by

the parties to the writ petition.

14. Out of the five charges against the petitioner, Charge No.3

concerns exercise of power by the petitioner punishing the plaintiff for

contempt of court while deciding I.A.No.242 of 2013. The order dated

24.04.2013 in I.A.No.242 of 2013 in O.S.No.61 of 2008 has been filed at

page 74 of the additional material papers submitted by the petitioner. A 13 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

minute reading of this document would reveal the following observation

by the court in one part of the order, which reads as under:

"On 10.4.2013 plaintiff present, defendants absent. Plaintiff filed memo and it is allowed on terms and conditions. As per the Orders in Memo time granted till 15.4.2013, no further time will be given.

On 15.4.2013 plaintiff present, his Counsel present, he did not choose to address arguments. Conditional Order dt.18.4.2013 not complied, hence plaintiff side arguments treated as heard. Defendants counsel filed written arguments. Judgment reserved.

On 17.4.2013, the plaintiff filed a petition vide I.A.No.225/2013 before this Court stating that not to deliver the Judgment and attributed that this Court has not given adjournments asked by him infinitively. That was disposed off on the same day itself and the plaintiff was remanded to judicial custody till rising the Court and show cause notice was issued for his acts of contempt of Court and as he did not offer any explanation to the show cause notice issued to him after recording his statement the plaintiff was convicted under Section 345 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 228 of IPC and he is sentenced pay a fine of Rs.200/- and he has paid the fine amount into Court."

15. After the above order was passed, the petitioner proceeded to

decide the maintainability of the application which was in fact a letter

addressed to the High Court and a copy thereof sent to the petitioner, 14 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

which was treated as an I.A., and dealt with vide order dated 24.04.2013.

In paragraph 4 of the said order, it is mentioned that plaintiff filed a

petition on 17.04.2013 which was registered as I.A.No.225 of 2013 and

the contents of the said petition are more or less equal to that of the

contents of the present petition (I.A.No.242 of 2013) and such a petition

was taken as summary contempt under Section 345 Cr.P.C., and was

disposed of on the same day finding the plaintiff guilty under Section 345

Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 228 IPC and sentencing to pay a

fine of Rs.200/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one

month. The petitioner went on to observe that instead of approaching the

superior court, the plaintiff, again, sent a letter registered as I.A.No.242 of

2013, which is vexatious, frivolous and scandalous. According to the

petitioner, as observed in the order, the plaintiff has committed contempt

and disobedience of the order of the court as well of the High Court in

C.R.P.No.1741 of 2013, which squarely amounts to contempt of court;

therefore, all the acts committed by the plaintiff squarely fall within the

meaning of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and

he is liable for action. Then, the petitioner proceeded to impose costs of

Rs.30,000/-; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

in civil prison.

16. A reading of the order passed by the petitioner in I.A.No.242 of

2013 would clearly reveal that, in fact, while dismissing I.A., which was 15 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

otherwise a letter and not an application, the petitioner exercised

contempt jurisdiction with a clear finding that the plaintiff therein has

committed contempt of court and is liable for action and then proceeded

to impose costs of Rs.30,000/- on him; in default, to suffer simple

imprisonment for three months. The petitioner's defence that, as civil

court he has power under Section 35 and 35-A of CPC, to impose costs, is

not acceptable for the simple reason that costs are imposed under Section

35 CPC to meet the expenses incurred in the suit and the costs under

Section 35-A CPC are exemplary costs. However, in both the situations,

civil court has no power to direct that in the event costs are not paid, the

parties shall undergo imprisonment. There is no such power with the civil

court while rejecting any prayer by the plaintiff in an interim application.

Therefore, it is proved that the petitioner intended and did, in fact,

exercise powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which he could

not have done as court subordinate to the High Court and he has no

power to punish for contempt except by following procedure laid down

under Sections 5, 9 and 10 of the said Act, by making reference to the

High Court. Ultimate power to punish a person for committing contempt

of subordinate court lies with the High Court and the petitioner could not

have exercised that power, which is grossly unjust and amounts to

misconduct. In the case on hand, it is manifest that on earlier occasion

also, while deciding I.A.No.225 of 2013, the plaintiff was proceeded 16 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

against for committing summary contempt under Section 345 Cr.P.C. and

was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-; in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for one month. If a party to the suit moves

an application for adjournment, he cannot be proceeded against for

summary contempt. It is to be noted that on yet another occasion, when

the plaintiff moved an application before the High Court for postponing

the judgment and sent a copy of the letter to the petitioner, he registered

the same as I.A., and again proceeded to punish the complainant for

committing contempt. On both occasions, i.e. while deciding I.A.No.225

of 2013 and I.A.No.242 of 2013, the petitioner, as the presiding officer of

the Court of Senior Civil Judge, passed orders in hot-haste on the same

day.

17. Judicial proceedings in court are to be conducted in a decent, sober

and disciplined manner. A party to the litigation cannot be terrorized and

punished for committing summary contempt or contempt of court for

moving application for adjournment. Petitioner's overall conduct while

exercising powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not befitting

to the office of the Senior Civil Judge and there is no doubt that the

petitioner committed grave misconduct while imposing costs of

Rs.30,000/- on the plaintiff and directing him to under simple

imprisonment for three months in default of payment of costs. Payment

of costs cannot be treated to be payment of fine as is understood under 17 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or in criminal law. There is no provision

which empowers the civil court to impose costs and then direct the party

to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of costs. The petitioner,

as a presiding officer of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, is presumed to

know the law in this regard and he cannot escape the fallout of his orders

if they are otherwise wholly without jurisdiction and demonstrate his

conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.

18. In Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad and others

through Registrar and others - (1987) 3 SCC 1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that conduct of a judicial officer cannot have two

standards, one in the court and another outside the court; they must have

only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity and they cannot act

even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy.

19. In R.C. Chandel v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and

another - (2012) 8 SCC 58, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus in

paragraph 29:

"29. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and the Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity 18 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

and unimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secured that the Judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration. The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and the rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty.

20. In Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra

and others - (2019) 9 SCC 144, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

considering as to how the behaviour of a Judge should be, held thus in

paragraphs 5, 6 & 7:

"5. The first and foremost quality required in a Judge is integrity. The need of integrity in the judiciary is much higher than in other institutions. The judiciary is an institution whose foundations are based on honesty and integrity. It is, therefore, necessary that judicial officers should possess the sterling quality of integrity. This Court in Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu [Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu, (2005) 1 SCC 201] held as follows: (SCC p. 203) 19 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

"Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline, apart from others. It is high time the judiciary took utmost care to see that the temple of justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to a catastrophe in the justice-delivery system resulting in the failure of public confidence in the system. It must be remembered that woodpeckers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside."

"6. The behaviour of a Judge has to be of an exacting standard, both inside and outside the court. This Court in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad [Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad, (1987) 3 SCC 1 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 132] held thus: (SCC p. 1) "Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and another outside the court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy."

"7. Judges are also public servants. A Judge should always remember that he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not only by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others should be incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges."

21. In a recent judgment in Sadhna Chaudhary v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another - (2020) 11 SCC 760, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that end result of the judicial process does not matter and

what matters is only the decision-making process employed by the

delinquent judicial officer. The same principle has been laid down in 20 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

Krishna Prasad Verma (supra) and Ishwar Chand Jain (supra) relied

on by the petitioner.

22. In the case at hand, the charge against the petitioner is not only

about passing some order, but about his overall conduct in passing orders

in hot-haste imposing punishment for committing contempt of court for

which he has no jurisdiction. As discussed supra, on both the occasions,

orders in I.A.No.242 of 2013 and I.A.No.225 of 2013 were passed on the

same day without giving prior opportunity to the plaintiff. In one of the

I.As., petitioner registered an interim application merely on the basis of a

copy of the communication sent by the plaintiff to the High Court. It

appears, while registering the said copy as I.A., petitioner has already

made up his mind to punish the plaintiff for contempt of court. The

conduct of the petitioner was not sober and decent and would not send

proper message to the litigants in general and the overall conduct of the

petitioner demonstrates his erratic behavior while dealing with judicial

proceedings. Not only this, petitioner chose to make uncalled for and

unwarranted comments on the District Judge who submitted a report

against him, which formed the basis for disciplinary proceedings against

him. The petitioner also submitted petition directly in the name of the

Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court and sent a copy thereof to the

then Portfolio Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice R. Subhash Reddy in utter

disobedience of the Circular Instructions issued in Roc.No.3240/84-B.Spl.6 21 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.No.35983 of 2018

dated 07.07.1984 and Roc.300/90.B.Spl., dated 18.01.1990. To this

specific charge of violating circular instructions of the High Court, the

petitioner states that these were issued before his joining service;

therefore, he was not aware of it. Such stand that he is not aware of the

circulars issued by the High Court is again unbecoming of a judicial officer.

23. Considering the entire charges meticulously, we are of the

considered view that the petitioner has demonstrated conduct and

behaviour unbecoming of a judicial officer. Therefore, he has rightly been

awarded penalty of removal from service and no interference with the

decision of the disciplinary authority and that of the State Government in

issuing G.O. on the recommendation of the High Court, is called for.

24. The writ petition deserves to be, and is, hereby, dismissed. No

order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

          Sd/-                                              Sd/-

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                       D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

MRR