A.B. WADEYAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to quash a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the respondent in D.I.No.11/2005 against the petitioner.

(2.) The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) on 9.3.1983. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) on 29.5.1995. He was promoted as District Judge, on ad-hoc basis, on 15.11.2003. A complaint dated 1.9.2005 having been received, upon holding of a discreet inquiry, based on a report submitted, Administrative Committee I ("Committee" for short) of the High Court of Karnataka, passed a resolution on 14.11.2005, to frame charges against the petitioner. The draft charges was approved on 15.3.2006. Article of Charges (Annexure-A) and Statement of Imputation of Misconduct (Annexure-B) dated 15.4.2006 was served on the petitioner on 19.4.2006. Petitioner sought time to submit his explanation. Extension of time was granted, i.e., up to 30.10.2006. Petitioner submitted a written statement dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure-C). Under Rule 11(2) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, Hon'ble Sri Justice N.Kumar, Judge, High Court of Karnataka, was appointed as an Inquiring Authority on 29.9.2008, to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The said Inquiring Authority, on 14.9.2011, recused, for personal reasons. Hence, the Committee passed a resolution on 19.12.2011, appointing Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Jagannathan, the then sitting Judge, High Court of Karnataka, as the Inquiring Authority and an order dated 21.12.2011 vide Annexure-E was issued. The said Inquiring Authority issued notice to the petitioner, on 23.12.2011, to appear for the inquiry. On 7.1.2012, preliminary sitting was held. On 18.1.2012, the Registrar - Vigilance took time to produce the documents sought by the petitioner. On 3.2.2012, a new Presenting Officer appointed, sought time. On 14.2.2012, notice was directed to be served on the witnesses shown in the Articles of charge. On 25.2.2012, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Notice to PWs.3 to 5 was issued and on 17.3.2012, they were examined and Exs.P7 to P15 were marked. PW.6 appeared, was examined and Exs.P16 to P37 were marked. On the request made by the petitioner, cross-examination of PW.6 was deferred to 23.4.2012. This writ petition was filed on 14.3.2012. On 27.4.2012, in this writ petition it was ordered that, 'cross-examination be adjourned by the concerned by four weeks'. The said interim order was extended on 4.6.2012 and 10.8.2012.

(3.) Sri K.V.Narasimhan, learned advocate, in support of the prayers in this writ petition, by placing reliance on a decision in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakishan, 1998 4 SCC 154, contended that on account of the delay on the part of the respondent, the inquiry proceeding is vitiated and if the same is continued, would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. He submitted that the Inquiring Authority was appointed long after the date of retirement of the petitioner from service and there is no justification for the respondent to continue the inquiry, even after the lapse of 41/2 years, after retirement of the petitioner from service. He submitted that the petitioner being not the cause for the delay in finalisation of the disciplinary inquiry, the prayers in the writ petition may be granted.