K. B. LENKENNAVAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as DJO's Delinquent Judicial Officer) was appointed to the post of District Judge in Sub-ordinate judiciary by direct recruitment on 15.05.1996. He was dismissed from services by invoking Rule 8 (viii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules) by order dated 28.04.2009 Annexure-J. DJO is seeking for quashing of the said order dated 28.04.2009 Annexure- J by issue of writ of certiorari and for consequential directions to the respondents to reinstate him into service with consequential service and monetary benefits by issue of writ of mandamus.

(2.) DJO was issued with articles of charges on 06.09.2005 Annexure-A by High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as Disciplinary Authority) Bangalore and nine charges were levelled against the DJO. On receipt of articles of charges DJO has submitted his written statement or reply to the articles of charge on 17.10.2005. Reply submitted by DJO to the charges, came to be considered by the Administrative Committee-I (AC-I) in its meeting held on 14.11.2005 and it was resolved to recommend to the full court to keep the DJO under suspension with immediate effect. Administrative Committee-I had also recommended appointment of Justice Sri. R. Guru-rajan as the inquiring authority. Said recommendation of Administrative Committee-I was accepted by full court in its meeting held on 23.11.2005. Accordingly DJO was placed under suspension with effect from 30.11.2005. High Court by notification dated 01.12.2005 appointed a sitting Judge of this court namely Justice Sri.R.Gururajan as inquiring authority to inquire into charges levelled against the DJO. Inquiry was held and on behalf of prosecution 12 witnesses were examined and 62 documents came to be marked. On behalf of DJO he got himself examined and got marked 27 documents. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and taking note of the arguments advanced by respective learned advocates appearing for the parties, inquiry authority held that charges 1 to 6 as proved and charges 7 to 9 were held as not proved by giving benefit of doubt to DJO. A report dated 30.04.2007 Annexure- E came to be submitted by inquiring authority to the competent authority. Said report came to be placed before the Administrative Committee-I which considered the report submitted by inquiring authority and agreed with the findings of the inquiring authority and accepted the report. Said committee was of the view that penalty of dismissal from service should be levied on DJO (under suspension) and it was resolved to issue a notice to delinquent officer in terms of Rule 11(A)(4) of CCA Rules, 1957.

(3.) Pursuant to the said resolution of Administrative Committee-I, a show-cause notice was issued to DJO on 11.10.2007 whereunder the DJO has been notified that High court has decided to accept the report submitted by inquiry authority and had proposed to impose punishment of dismissal from service and as such called upon DJO to show cause as to why punishment of dismissal as per Rule 8(viii) of CCA Rules should not be imposed on him for proved misconduct. In reply to said show-cause notice DJO submitted his statement on 26.10.2007 as per Annexure-G. Said reply came to be considered by Administrative Committee-I in its meeting held on 28.08.2008 and it was of the view that reply to the show-cause notice submitted by DJO is not satisfactory and as such it was of the opinion that it is a fit case to confirm the proposed punishment. However, taking a lenient view in the matter it recommended for compulsory retirement under Rule 8(VI) of CCA Rules instead of dismissal and recommended the same to the full court. Full court in its meeting held on 04.10.2008 considered the reports and relevant material on record and resolved to confirm the punishment of dismissal of DJO and Full-Court was also of the view that there is no need to take any lenient view considering the gravity and seriousness of charges which was proved in the enquiry. Pursuant to said resolution Registrar General vide communication dated 18.12.2008 Annexure-M requested the Government for imposition of penalty of dismissal of DJO by enclosing a copy of draft order for adoption with such modification as deemed fit. However, on account of erroneous subrule having been mentioned in the said communication dated 18.12.2008 i.e., sub-rule (vii) instead of sub-rule (viii) of Rule 8 of CCA Rules, the Government of Karnataka sought for clarification in this regard vide communication dated 31.01.2009 Annexure-N. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka by reply dated 19.02.2009 Annexure-O clarified that Full Court had proposed imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on DJO as contemplated under Rule 8(viii) of CCA Rules and by oversight while recommending it had been mentioned as imposition of penalty of dismissal from service under sub-rule(vii) of Rule 8 of KCS (C&A) Rules. Said order was communicated to the Governor of Karnataka by way of submission note from office of Secretary to Government (DPAR) bearing No.DPAR 90 SHC 2008 dated 31.01.2009 which submission note is said to have been approved by Hon'ble Chief Minister and as such Government sought for approval of the appointing authority i.e., Governor under Article 233 of the Constitution of India. Said submission note came to be placed before the Secretary to Governor which came to be approved on 31.03.2009 and thereafter his excellency Governor of Karnataka approved the note on 31.03.2009. Pursuant to said approval of recommendation made by High Court of Karnataka note was approved by the appointing authority namely His Excellency Governor of Karnataka. The order of dismissal dated 28. 04.2009 Annexure-J came to be issued by the appointing authority. It is this order which is challenged in the present writ petition by the DJO.