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. 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. Plaintiff had shown prima facie case, therefore order of status quo had been granted.
Was under Section, 104(A), bail was granted after hearing APP who was given opportunity to file objections.
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. 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.
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.
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 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 circumstances.
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.
The requirement of a second show cause notice relating to the proposed penalty was removed from Article 311 of the Constitution by the Constitution (42 Amendment) Act, 1976.
The show cause notices enclosing the enquiry reports, are dated 11.10.2007.
Accordingly, they are allowed and the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
Case Title: THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Vs. M. NARASIMHA PRASAD (2023 INSC 342)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002519-002522 / 2023
