(1.) A Judicial Officer is before this Court challenging the order dated 25-7-1996 Annexure-A and for consequential relief of reinstatement with all benefits on the following facts.
(2.) FACTS. Petitioner was selected as a Munsiff in the year 1987. He completed his probationary period of his service and posted to various places in the state of Karnataka. Petitioner was working as Munsiff and Judicial magistrate First Class at Kudligi between 25-2-1991 and 15-9-1992. At the relevant point of time, the local Bar developed hostile attitude towards the petitioner and in particular its President. The Local Bar was also hostile even towards the earlier judicial officers who worked at kudligi and also complained against the petitioner. Petitioner was kept under suspension by an order dated 23-4-1993 on the basis of the preliminary report dated 29-10-1992 by the Registrar (Vigilance ). Articles of charge as per Annexure-B was thereafter followed. Several charges were framed against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. A detailed written inquiry was conducted by a District Sessions Judge, Bellary, on various counts. Petitioner had the benefit of an Advocate in the inquiry held by the Enquiry Officer. He submitted a report and in the report he found the petitioner guilty of Charge No. 3 and Charge No. 5. He held that all the remaining charges were not proved in his report submitted by him on 16-2-1995. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 22-4-1995 along with the report and required him to show cause as to why the said finding should not be accepted. Petitioner submitted a representation 15-5-1995. Thereafter he was issued with another show-cause notice dated 20-2-1995, requiring him to show cause as to why a penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him. Petitioner submitted a representation on 4-9-1995 to the said notice. Thereafter, petitioner received an order bearing No. LAW 32 LAC 96, dated 25-7-1996 imposing the penalty of dismissal on him. It is this order that is challenged before me by the petitioner on various grounds.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance and justify their action by filing a detailed counter statement. Respondents state that a person holding the judicial office has to maintain absolute integrity. Judicial functions are sovereign functions and persons holding judicial posts are holding public post and not employees of the Government. The trust of the public is necessary for the people to have faith in the judiciary. Respondents have stated that the petitioner was involved in certain serious charges which has been proved in the inquiry. They say that the petitioner was provided with all opportunities and thereafter the Full bench of the High Court resolved to impose the penalty of dismissal. They recommended the said punishment of dismissal to the Governor and thereafter, the Governor has issued the present order. The respondents justify the dismissal.