Pronouncing Operative Portion Without Preparing Entire Judgment Is Unbecoming Of A Judicial Officer: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Civil Judge

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the penalty of dismissal from service for a Civil Judge on account of gross misconduct, setting aside the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.

The Apex Court opined that the appeals were allowed by the High Court through “a very strange order," in which not only the order of penalty was set aside along with the findings of the inquiry officer, but also the Court directed that no further inquiry can be held against the respondent judge.

The bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal said that, “that 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 remarked that the High Court had “created a new jurisprudence” by stating that there shall not be any further inquiry against the judge, while setting aside the penalty.

The Apex Court heard the special leave petition filed by the Registrar General of Karnataka challenging the order of the division bench of the High Court that set aside the penalty of dismissal from service of a Civil Judge on account of gross misconduct.

Brief Facts

The respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in January 1995. However, in January 2005, the respondent was suspended on allegations of gross misconduct. The enquiry reports revealed that some charges were proved while others were not.

Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued, and in October 2008, the Full Court of the High Court of Karnataka resolved to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent judge. Based on the Full Court's resolution, the Governor of Karnataka passed an order of dismissal from service in October 2008.

The respondent filed a set of three writ petitions to challenge the findings of the enquiry officer and a separate writ petition to challenge the order of dismissal from service. However, all these writ petitions were dismissed by a Judge through a common order. Subsequently, the respondent filed intra-court appeals against the order. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed those appeals.

The Registrar General of the High Court filed civil appeals before the Supreme Court, being aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench.

Verdict

The Apex Court said that the appeals were allowed “by a very strange order” not only the order of penalty was set aside and the findings of the enquiry officer but also the Court directed that no further inquiry can be held against the respondent.

The Court opined that the judge is charged with certain serious charges that revolve around pronouncing the operative portion of the judgment in open court without the whole text of the judgment being ready.

Further, charges 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”, said the Court.

The Apex Court said that, “A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated”.

The Court noted that all that the respondent judge 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”, remarked the Court.

The Court opined that 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 dismissed the respondent's defence that the stenographer's lack of experience and inefficiency were responsible for the delay in preparing the entire text of the judgment, even after several days had passed since the result was pronounced in open court.

The Court opined that,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.

The Court explained 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, (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 extenuating circumstances.

The Court said that, the opinion of the High Court in 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 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, said the Court.

The Apex Court further highlighted that, “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”

In light of the above, the Court allowed the appeal.Consequently the order of the Division bench was set aside and order of penalty imposed upon the respondent judge was upheld.

Case Title- The Registrar General High Court of Karnataka &Anr v. Sri M.Narasimha Prasad

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Judicial Service - Supreme Court upholds the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on a civil judge in Karnataka - A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated-Supreme Court takes exception to the High Court division bench not only setting aside the penalty but also ordering that there shall be no further enquiry against the officer

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment