Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Karnataka. The respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge on 31.01.1995. On allegations of gross misconduct, he was suspended on 25.01.2005, and four charge memos (DI No.2/2005, DI No.3/2005, DI No.4/2005, DI No.5/2005) were issued on 23.03.2005. Separate enquiries were conducted, and the enquiry officer submitted reports on 29.03.2007 and 27.04.2007, finding some charges proved and others not proved. After issuing second show cause notices, the Full Court of the Karnataka High Court resolved on 04.10.2008 to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. Consequently, the Governor of Karnataka passed an order of dismissal on 19.03.2009. The respondent challenged the enquiry findings and the dismissal order by filing writ petitions, which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 30.11.2011. Aggrieved, the respondent filed intra-court appeals before the Division Bench, which allowed the appeals by a strange order setting aside the penalty and the enquiry findings and directing that no further inquiry be held against the respondent. The Registrar General of the High Court appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the parties and considered the correctness of the High Court's order. The Court noted that the Division Bench had acted beyond its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings, which is impermissible in judicial review. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the order of the Single Judge, thereby upholding the dismissal of the respondent.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Officers - Standard of Proof - The High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot act as an appellate authority and reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - The Division Bench erred in setting aside the enquiry officer's findings which were based on evidence and in directing that no further inquiry be held - Held that the order of the Division Bench was unsustainable and liable to be set aside (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and also directing that no further inquiry can be held against him.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the common order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, and restored the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, thereby upholding the dismissal of the respondent from service.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers
- Standard of proof in departmental enquiries
- Power of High Court in judicial review of disciplinary matters
- Scope of interference with findings of fact by enquiry officer
