Karnataka High Court
High Court Of Karnataka vs A. N. Pattan on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.5569 OF 2017 (S-DIS)
IN
W.P. No.8640 OF 2013 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. RAJENDRA M.S. ADV.,)
AND:
1. A.N. PATTAN
S/O SRI. NAGAPPA BALAKRISHNA PATTAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
CHANDRIKA NIVAS
DOOR NO 2-17-1476/2
OPPOSITE TO BALIGA STORES
'BAJOI', MANGALORE - 575009.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560001.
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.P. KULKARNI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. V. THUKARAMA RAO, ADV., FOR R1
MR. S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R2)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/06/2017
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 8640/2013 AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITON 8640/2013 AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER AND FURHTER RELIEFS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF
THIS APPEAL.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal, filed by High Court of
Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the 'HCK' for short),
arises from judgment dated 29.06.2017 passed by learned
Single Judge. By the said order, the writ petition preferred by
respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'judicial
officer' for short) against order dated 01.10.2012 imposing
the penalty of dismissal has been allowed and the said order
has been quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to
reinstated in service with all monetary and consequential
benefits.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell
are that the judicial officer on 18.10.1993 joined the service
as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC. In the year 2004,
he was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division). In May
2007, the judicial officer was transferred to Mangalore as was
posted as II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division).
Thereafter vide orders dated 25.05.2009 and 01.07.2009,
the judicial officer was transferred and posted as First
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Principal Civil
Judge (Senior Division) and CJM respectively at Mangalore.
3. On 15.08.2009, one Mr.K.M.Asif Ahmed
(hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant' for short) filed a
complaint against the judicial officer that he had indulged in
corrupt practices and had issued a threat to him that in case,
no money is paid an order adverse to the complainant in
O.S.No.395/2006 would be passed. A copy of the complaint
was sent to Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of Karnataka
and Registrar (Vigilance). On 03.09.2009, Registrar
(Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka conducted a discreet
enquiry against the judicial officer and a report was
submitted. In the report it was stated that judicial officer
failed to maintain integrity, impartially and good reputation
expected of a judicial officer while discharging the judicial
functions. It was also stated in the report that judicial officer
was taking sites of builders and land mafia and was
rendering judgments in their favour in civil disputes.
4. On 12.10.2009, the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Mangalore was asked to submit a report. The
complainant filed his affidavit before the Principal District and
Sessions Judge and the statement of the complainant was
also recorded. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Mangalore submitted a report on 04.11.2009 to Registrar
(Vigilance), HCK. In the report it was stated that complainant
was approached by one Mr.Shafi claiming to be the owner of
Mother Land Real Estate and Properties. Aforesaid Mr.Shafi
claimed to be an agent of the judicial officer and demanded a
sum of Rs.15 Lakhs to render a judgment in favour of the
complainant in O.S.No.394/2006. Another discreet enquiry
was also conducted by Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell,
High Court and a report was submitted on 13.11.2019. The
aforesaid report revealed that complaint made by the
complainant was genuine and judicial officer was in the habit
of visiting the properties involved in civil suits pending before
him and had nexus with certain real estate agents. In
exercise of powers under Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the 1957 Rules' for short), the judicial officer
was placed under suspension.
5. A charge sheet containing the Articles of Charges
and statement of imputations of misconduct was served on
the judicial officer on 30.07.2010. Thereafter, by a notice
dated 28.09.2010, the judicial officer was asked to submit his
reply to the Articles of Charges and statement of imputations
of misconduct. The judicial officer submitted his written
statement of defence on 11.10.2010 and thereafter,
submitted an additional written statement on 16.11.2010. By
an order dated 19.04.2011, Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Hassan was appointed as enquiry officer.
Mr.Manjunath Bhat, Public Prosecutor, Court of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore was appointed on
09.06.2011 as presenting officer.
6. In the departmental enquiry, 9 witnesses were
examined on behalf of the appellant and 7 documents were
marked as exhibits viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The judicial officer
examined himself as a witness and got marked 15
documents viz., Ex.D1 to Ex.D15. The enquiry officer
submitted a report on 15.01.2012 and found that all the 3
charges leveled against the judicial officer were proved. The
judicial officer was held guilty of misconduct within the
meaning of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service
(Conduct) Rules, 1966.
7. A show cause dated 09.04.2012 was issued to
the judicial officer with regard to the penalty. A reply was
filed by the judicial officer to the aforesaid notice on
26.04.2012. The Administrative Committee of HCK on
06.06.2012 accepted the report of the enquiry authority and
opined that the penalty of dismissal from service should be
imposed on the judicial officer. The Full Court in its meeting
held on 14.07.2012 resolved to recommend to the
government to impose the penalty of dismissal from service
under Rule 8(viii) of the 1957 Rules. The State Government
by an order dated 01.10.2012 passed an order imposing
penalty of dismissal from service. The judicial officer
challenged the said order in writ petition.
8. The learned Single Judge by an order dated
19.06.2011 inter alia held that the charges leveled against
the judicial officer are vague. The learned Single Judge also
appreciated the evidence adduced in the departmental
enquiry and held that evidence of PW1 is not worthy of
reliance and the charges leveled against the judicial officer
are not proved. The learned Single Judge quashed the order
of dismissal dated 01.10.2012 and directed the appellant to
reinstate the judicial officer in service with all monetary and
consequential benefits. In the aforesaid factual background,
this appeal has been filed.
9. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted
that learned Single Judge grossly erred in acting like an
appellate authority and in reviewing the evidence and to
arrived at an independent finding on the evidence adduced.
It is further submitted that then learned Single Judge ought
to have appreciated that the standard of proof required in
departmental enquiry is of preponderance of probabilities and
not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted that
in a departmental enquiry, materials which are logically
probative for a prudent mind are permissible. It is also
urged that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge
that the charges leveled against the judicial officer are vague
is factually incorrect and there is ample evidence on record to
prove the charges against the judicial officer. In support of
the aforesaid submissions reliance has been placed on
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS SREE RAMA RAO AIR
1963 SC 1723, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS
CHITRA VENKATA RAO 1975 (2) SCC 557, UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS VS P GUNASEKARAN 2015 (2) SCC 61,
UNION OF INDIA VS SARDAR BAHADUR 1972 (4) SCC
618, STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR VS RATTAN SINGH
AIR 1977 SC 1512, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
VS MG VITTAL RAO 2012 (1) SCC 442.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the judicial
officer submitted that there was a delay of one year in
lodging the complaint of illegal gratification which was not
explained by the complainant. It is further submitted that the
complaint was actuated by malice and the material gathered
in discreet enquiry was relied upon by the enquiry officer. It
is also contended that witnesses examined in the
departmental enquiry did not support the demand of illegal
gratification and the evidence of office bearers of the bar
association is extraneous. It is pointed out that there is no
evidence to support the charges. It is contended that the
second show cause notice has been issued in violation of the
law laid down by Supreme Court. It is also submitted that the
judicial officer was issued appreciation letter for his
performance for a period from 10.02.2004 to 26.08.2009. It
is also urged that judicial officer has to be accorded
protection. It is however pointed out that judicial officer has
attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of
this appeal and therefore, the relief be suitably modified. In
support of aforesaid submission reliance has been placed on
PC JOSHI VS STATE OF UP AIR 2001 SC 2788,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE VS SB RAMESH AIR 1998 SC
853 AND REGISTRARA GENENRAL, HIGH COURT OF
GUJURAT VS JAYSHREE CHAMANLAL BHUDDHBHATTI
(2013) 16 SCC 59.
11. We have considered the submissions made on both
sides and have perused the record. In 'STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH ORS. VS. S.SREE RAMA RAO', AIR 1963 SC
1723 it was held that High Court in a proceeding under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as a court
of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry. It is only concerned to determine
whether the enquiry held by an authority competent in that
behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that
behalf and whether the rules of natural justice have been
followed. It has also been held that where there is some
evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty of
holding an enquiry has accepted and which may support the
conclusion. It is not the function of the high court to review
the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the
evidence. Similar view was reiterated in 'B.C.CHATURVEDI
VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.', (1995) 6 SCC 749. In
'HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH
ITS REGISTRAR VS. SHASHIKANTH S. PATIL AND
ANOTHER', (2000) 1 SCC 416, it was held that
interference with the decision of the departmental authorities
is permitted if such authority has held the proceedings in
violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of
statutory regulations providing the mode of departmental
enquiry. [Also See: PRAVIN KUMAR VS. UNION OF
INDIA, (2020) 9 SCC 471].
12. In 'STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR
VS. NEMICHAND NALWAYA', (2011) 4 SCC 584, it has
been held that no interference shall be made in a disciplinary
proceeding on the ground that another view is possible on
the basis of material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly
and properly held and the findings are based on evidence,
the question of adequacy of evidence and reliable nature of
evidence will not be a ground for interfering with the
findings. In 'STATE OF BIHAR VS. PHULPARI', (2020) 2
SCC 130, it has been held that standard of proof in the
criminal proceeding and the departmental enquiry is
different. In criminal case, the standard of proof is beyond
reasonable doubt, whereas in the departmental enquiry the
charges have to be proved on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities.
13. The principles with regard to interference of the
proceeding of the departmental enquiry has been culled out
by Supreme court in 'UNION OF INDIA VS.
P.GUNASEKARAN', (2015) 2 SCC 610, which is
reproduced below for the facility of reference:
12. Despite the well-settled position, it is
painfully disturbing to note that the High Court
has acted as an appellate authority in the
disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even
the evidence before the enquiry officer. The
finding on Charge I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal. In
disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not
and cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
The High Court, in exercise of its powers under
Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India,
shall not venture into re-appreciation of the
evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority.
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the proceedings.
(d) the authorities have disabled
themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by
some considerations extraneous to the evidence
and merits of the case.
(e) the authorities have allowed
themselves to be influenced by irrelevant of
extraneous considerations.
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it,
is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived at
such conclusion.
(g) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously failed to admit the admissible and
material evidence.
(h) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence
which influenced the finding.
(i) the finding of fact is based on no
evidence.
13. Under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the
enquiry, in case the same has been conducted
in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the
evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the
evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal
evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however
grave it may appear to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of
punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
14. In 'RAM MURTI YADAV VS. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH' (2020) SCC 1 801, the Supreme Court while
dealing with the issue of penalty imposed on a judicial officer
has held as under:
13. A person entering the judicial service
no doubt has career aspirations including
promotions. An order of compulsory retirement
undoubtedly affects the career aspirations.
Having said so, we must also sound a caution
that judicial service is not like any other service.
A person discharging judicial duties acts on
behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign
functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an
onerous duty but has been considered as akin to
discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a
very serious matter. The standards of probity,
conduct, integrity that may be relevant for
discharge of duties by a careerist in another job
cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge
holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable
integrity, unimpeachable independence with
moral values embodied to the core are absolute
imperatives which brooks no compromise. A
judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and
the public has a right to demand virtually
irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a
judicial function. Judges must strive for the
highest standards of integrity in both their
professional and personal lives.
14. It has to be kept in mind that a person
seeking justice, has the first exposure to the
justice delivery system at the level of
subordinate judiciary, and thus a sense of
injustice can have serious repercussions not only
on that individual but can have its fall out in the
society as well. It is therefore absolutely
necessary that the ordinary litigant must have
complete faith at this level and no impression can
be afforded to be given to a litigant which may
even create a perception to the contrary as the
consequences can be very damaging. The
standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of
the judicial officer therefore has necessarily to be
strict. Having said so, we must also observe that
it is not every inadvertent flaw or error that will
make a judicial officer culpable. The State
Judicial Academies undoubtedly has a stellar role
to perform in this regard. A bona fide error may
need correction and counselling. But a conduct
which creates a perception beyond the ordinary
cannot be countenanced. For a trained legal
mind, a judicial order speaks for itself.
Now we may advert to the facts of the case on hand.
The following charges were leveled against the judicial
officer:
Charge 1:
That while you were working as II Addl. Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.), Mangalore from 28.05.2007, a complaint
was received against you making allegations of
corruption; that you have demanded Rs.15,00,000/-
from the complainant, Sri. K.M. Asif, Mangalore,
through one Mr. Shafi; to dispose of his Civil Case in
O.S.No.394/06 pending on the file of your court, in
his favour.
That the District Judge, D.K. Mangalore,
recorded the statement of the complainant, Sri.
K.M. Asif and also obtained affidavit of the
complainant; that the statement of the complainant
recorded by the District Judge, D.K. Mangalore,
reveals that during the last Ramzan, (2008), you,
through one Mr. Shafi, (Mobile No.988013790)
owner of Mother Land Real Estate and Properties,
demanded from the complainant a sum of Rs.15
lakhs to render favourable judgment in
O.S.No.394/2006 filed by the complainant.
Thereby, you have indulged in corruptive
activities and failed to maintain absolute integrity,
devotion to duty and committed an act of
unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to
misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(i) (ii) &
(iii) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
Charge 2:
That the discreet enquiry conducted by the Registrar
(Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore on
3.9.09 among the Advocates including President,
District Bar Association, Mangalore, reveals that you
have failed to maintain integrity, impartiality and
good reputation in the discharge of your judicial
functions; that you were said to be taking sides in
civil cases in which Builders and land mafia are
interested/involved; that you were said to be
showing undue haste in the disposal of cases in
which real estate agents are interested, that you
were said to be visiting the properties involved in
the suit and negotiating deals by giving favourable
orders and judgments through real estate agents.
Thereby, you have failed to maintain absolute
integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act of
unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, which amount to
misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) &
(iii) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
Charge 3: That the discreet enquiry conducted by the
Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell of this office,
reveals that when the Police Inspector who,
enquired the complainant Sri. K.M. Asif, affirmed
the allegations made against you in his complaint
petition; besides discreet enquiry of the Police
Inspector, reveals that you were in the habit of
visiting the properties involved in the civil suits
through some agents and litigants and then
delivering judgments in their favour, that you were
said to be having nexus with some real estate
agents.
Thereby, you have failed to maintain absolute
integrity, devotion to duty and committed acts of
unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, which amounts to
misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) &
(iii) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
Thus, from the perusal of aforesaid charges, it is
axiomatic that the charges leveled against the judicial officer
by no stretch of imagination can be said to be vague.
15. Now we may refer to the evidence adduced in
support of aforesaid charges. In support of charge No.1, the
complainant has been examined who has stated in his
examination in chief that he had purchased the property
which was subject matter of O.S.No.394/2006. It has further
been stated one Mr.Shafi called him to a bar at Lawnsway
Bar at Falneer, Sturrock Road, Mangalore. When the
complainant reached there, he was introduced by Mr.Shafi to
the judicial officer who was sitting in the black Honda SUV
Car, bearing registration No.6477 belonging to aforesaid
Mr.Shafi. Thereupon, judicial officer told the complainant that
if he pays a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs, the problem in the case
could be solved and in case, the complainant pays the
amount of Rs.15 Lakhs within 45 days, the judicial officer
and Mr.Shafi get the property registered in the name of
complainant. Thereupon the complainant told him that he
had purchased the property for Rs.14 Lakhs, whereas, the
demand was made for Rs.15 Lakhs, thereupon complainant
was told by the judicial officer that the value of the property
has gone up. The President of Mangalore Bar Association
Mr.S.P.Chengappa has been examined as PW2 who stated
that he was called in the Chambers of Principal District
Judge, Mangalore where he met Registrar (Vigilance) of HCK.
On enquiry being made, the aforesaid witness informed the
Registrar (Vigilance) that the judicial officer is involved in
corrupt practices and was taking sides by receiving money by
various methods.
16. Another Advocate Mr.Ravi Prasanna has been
examined as PW3 who has stated that he was called in the
Chamber of Principal District Judge, Mangalore where he met
Registrar (Vigilance). The aforesaid witness stated that he
had submitted a complaint to the President, Mangalore Bar
Association about the judicial officer stating that G & WC
No.29/2008 was posted for hearing on maintainability and
one Naveen had approached his client Hemalatha stating that
he would get the matter settled by receiving the amount by
approaching the concerned judicial officer. Thereafter, an
order was passed on 08.07.2010 by the delinquent officer
holding the petition to be maintainable. Another Advocate
Mr.Prakhyath Rai Y.V. has been examined as PW4 stating
that he had told the Registrar (Vigilance) that delinquent
judicial officer was not recording the statement correctly and
did not accept the compromise petition for months together.
It was further stated that he had learnt that delinquent
judicial officer was corrupt.
17. Another Advocate Mr.K.B.Rai was examined as
PW5 who stated before the Registrar (Vigilance) in the
Chambers of Principal District Judge, Mangalore that 40
Advocates had submitted a complaint to the President of
Mangalore Bar Association stating that judicial officer was
corrupt. It was also stated in his evidence that judicial officer
was arrogant and was in habit of throwing papers after the
case was called and one Mr.Naveen who was staff in Vijaya
Bank was the Agent of the judicial officer. Mr.Ganesh
Shenoy, an Advocate practicing in Mangalore was examined
as PW6 who told the Registrar (Vigilance) in the Chambers of
Principal District Judge, Mangalore that behavior of the
judicial officer in the court was not good and there was a
rumor that judicial officer is corrupt. Mr.H.V.Deshpande,
Principal District Judge in Mangalore was examined as PW7
who has stated about the receipt of complaint against the
judicial officer and recording of the statement of the
complainant. He had further stated that complainant had also
furnished an affidavit in support of the complaint. Registrar
(Vigilance) was examined as PW8 who has produced the
records pertaining to the departmental enquiry conducted
against the judicial officer. It has further been stated that as
per the records of the then Registrar (Vigilance)
Mr.A.P.Murari, the judicial officer lacks integrity and has
nexus with real estate agents. Mr.Lokesh Kumar R.C., Police
Inspector (Vigilance) was examined as PW9 who stated that
he had enquired from the complainant who told him that the
contents of the complaint are true. It is also submitted that
after the enquiry, he had submitted the complaint Ex.P7.
18. The enquiry officer after considering the
documentary and the oral evidence on record has submitted
an enquiry report dated 13.11.2019, in which all the charges
leveled against the judicial officer had been found to be
proved. The standard of yardstick for judging the conduct of
the judicial officer is strict and therefore, impeccable integrity
with moral values embedded to code are absolute
imperatives, which cannot brook any compromise. In this
background, we have carefully perused the enquiry report.
The findings recorded by the enquiry officer by stretch of
imagination can be said to be either perverse or based on no
evidence. There is ample evidence on record to prove the
charges. Even otherwise, this court in exercise of powers of
judicial review cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot
interfere wit the findings merely on the ground that another
view is possible on the basis of material on record. The
enquiry against the employee has been held fairly and in
accordance with the statutory rules and the question of
adequacy of evidence cannot be a ground to interfere with
the findings, where the charges against the employee had to
be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
18. The learned Single Judge while passing the
impugned order has re-appreciated the evidence and has
arrived at different conclusion, which is not permissible in
exercise of powers of judicial review. Merely because, in the
opinion of the court another view is possible on the basis of
evidence adduced, no interference can be made with the
findings recorded by the enquiry officer.
In view of preceding analysis the order dated
29.06.2017 passed by learned Single Judge cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly, quashed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
