B YESHWANTH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER a judicial Officer is before me challenging the order dtd 8-1-2002 Annexure-G in this case.

(2.) BEFORE touching upon the facts of this case, let me notice as to how the Courts have viewed the conduct of a Judge. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar Vs. Shashikant S Patil (2000 (1) SCC 416) has ruled as under; it is the constitutional duty of every High Court, on the administrative side, to keep guard over the subordinate judiciary functioning within its domain. While it is imperative for the High Court to protect honest. judicial, officers against all ill conceived or motivated complaints, the High Court. cannot afford to by pass any dishonest performance of a Member of the subordinate judiciary. Dishonesty is the stark antithesis of judicial probity. Any instance of a High Court condoning or compromising with a dishonest deed of one of its officers would only be contributing to erosion of the judicial foundation. Every hour we must remind ourselves that the judiciary floats only over the confidence of the people in its probity. Such confidence is the foundation on which the pillars of the judiciary are built. 2. Petitioner was working as Munsiff and JMFC Balki. He received a charge memo from the High Court of Karnataka charging him for certain incident amounting to misconduct on his part. Petitioner denied the charges. The disciplinary authority appointed District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, as an enquiry officer dtd 25-9-1999. Petitioner was kept under suspension in terms of an order dtd 7-9-90. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. Thereafter order dtd 25-9-1992 was issued to the petitioner. The same was successfully challenged by the petitioner in WP. NO. 24458/1993. The appeal filed by the State stood dismissed by an order dtd 23-9-1999. Consequent upon the orders of this Court, petitioner was reinstated and was posted to Hiriyur. Thereafter petitioner was again kept under suspension pending enquiry. The matter was referred to District Judge, Chitradurga for conducting a. further enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report and in the report he noticed that all charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved. Report was sent to the petitioner and his reply was obtained. Thereafter, an order dtd 23-1-2002 has been passed. In the said order, petitioner was retired compulsorily as specified in Rule 8 (vii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. This order is challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) NOTICE was issued to the respondents and respondents have filed a very detailed counter statement. They justify their action. They refer to various material facts to contend that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct leveled against him and the enquiry held by the respondent is proper and legal. They say that this petition 1s to be dismissed.