R. BALARAJU Vs. HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) AND THE ENQUIRY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were working in this High Court as F.D.A. and S.D.A. respectively. They were placed under suspension by an order dated 24.11.2008 on the allegations made against them listing out as many as three charges. The charges are: while they were so working, the petitioner in the "second writ petition introduced one Sri E. Chandrappa complainant -petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 20601/2002 and 24595/2002 to the first petitioner stating that he knows about the facts of the case and has close contact with the officers, Hon'ble Judges, Court Officers and he can get judgment in those writ petitions in favour of the complainant on monetary consideration, the first petitioner is the person entrusted with the work of listing cases for hearing before the Court, he is to be looked after well. The petitioner in the second writ petition collected certain amounts from the complainant in all a sum of Rs. 45,000/ - and the first petitioner demanded a site as noted in the charge sheet as a gratification for getting him favourable order. Thereafter they were frequently contacting him over mobile phone pressurizing 'him for the money and registration of the site and after dismissal of the said cases on 24.7.2008 when the complainant approached the petitioners, they staged a sarcastic look at him and after much pleading, they advised the complainant to file either revision petition or an appeal and that they would see that the said cases are decided in favour of the complainant if only the complainant satisfies their demand for site, 50% of the cost of the site was payable to petitioner in the second writ petition. Further the first petitioner mentioned in the sale agreement cost of site @ Rs. 1,800/ - per sq. ft, is Rs. 21,60,000/ - and against the same, Rs. 20 lakhs is shown to have been paid as advance, neither the prior permission from High Court for purchase of the said site is obtained nor intimated as to the source for making payment of the said sum thereby the petitioners failed to maintain honesty, integrity and committed an act of unbecoming of High Court Servants which amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 22 of the High Court of Karnataka Services (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973. In the enquiry, deposition of the witnesses was recorded, the parties filed their written brief. The petitioners were issued show cause notice that the charges against them are established. The petitioners submitted their reply. The petitioners were issued with an order dated 1.10.2010 dismissing them from service.

(2.) THE petitioners filed review petitions seeking review of the order dated 1.10.2010. The said review petition also came to be dismissed by the order dated 7.12.2010. Hence the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of the contentions raised in the reply are considered while passing the order accepting the report. It is contended that the enquiry proceedings was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, the charges framed against the petitioners were vague, the enquiry report is biased, that decision was taken to hold an enquiry before the charge memo is issued on the petitioners. It is submitted that the enquiry report is based on presumptions and assumptions. There are serious inconsistencies considering the complaint, deposition, articles of charges said to have been issued on the basis of the complaint. The alleged agreement did not bear the signature and it is a fabricated document. It is evident from the call records that no calls were made to Mobile No. 9880374446 by the complainant and vice versa. There are inconsistencies in the deposition of PW -2 which are not appreciated by the Enquiry Officer. The version of the complainant cannot be believed because even though first delinquent was on leave on 6.7.2007, he has stated that he has met him in the Court. The enquiry officer has proceeded on the footing that Ex. P7 and Ex. P7(a) are admitted which is not correct. It is further contended that the Reviewing Authority has failed assign any reasons, just accepted the dismissal order. Even as per the say of the complainant, Rs. 10,000/ - he has paid to RCM Agency and therefore complainant cannot say that this amount is also paid to the 2nd petitioner. The complaint filed by the complainant is false, which ought to have been rejected. Since no appeal is provided, reconsideration of the materials was very much available which duty the Reviewing Authority has failed to discharge. Hence he prays for allowing the writ petitions.