THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ANR versus SRI M. NARASIMHA PRASAD

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 10-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND ANR.
v.
SRI M. NARASIMHA PRASAD
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2519-2522 of 2019)
APRIL 10, 2023
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
Service Law – Respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge
(Junior Division) – Respondent was suspended from service on
allegations of gross misconduct, followed by the initiation of
disciplinary proceedings – As per the enquiry reports, some charges
stood proved and the other charges were not proved – Full Court of
the High Court resolved to impose the penalty of dismissal from
service upon the respondent – Based on the resolution, respondent
was dismissed from service – Respondent challenged the findings
of the enquiry officer and the order of dismissal from service by
filing writ petitions before the High Court – High Court dismissed
the same – The respondent filed intra-court appeals against the
same – Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of
penalty and the findings of the enquiry officer and also directed
that no further inquiry can be held against the respondent – On
appeal, held: Some of the charges against the respondent were very
serious in nature, such as pronouncing the operative portion of the
judgment in open court without the whole text of the judgment being
ready, and similarly the conduct of auction sale of properties seized
during the investigation – Judicial Officer pronouncing the
concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire
text of the judgment being prepared/dictated would amount to gross
misconduct – Such conduct is completely unacceptable and
unbecoming of a judicial officer – High Court was not justified in
setting aside the penalty and in ordering that there shall be no
further enquiry against the Respondent – Judgment of High Court
set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Once those charges which revolve around the
manner of disposal of certain cases are ignored, what remains
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 51
51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
are certain serious charges that revolve around pronouncement
of operative portion of the judgment in open court without the
whole text of the judgment being ready. Take for instance, Charge
Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in DI No.3/2005. These Charges are very serious
in nature, where the respondent is alleged to have pronounced
the operative portion of the judgment in open court without the
whole of the judgment being ready. Similarly Charge No.1 in DI
No.5/2005 related to the conduct of auction sale of properties,
seized during the investigation. These are very serious in nature
and the reply given by the respondent to these charges is wishy
washy. [Para 12][59-D-E]
2. A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion
of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the
judgment being prepared/dictated. All that the respondent has
done in the departmental enquiry is just to pass on the
responsibility to the inefficient and allegedly novice stenographer.
This Court does not know how the findings with regard to such
serious charges have been completely white-washed by the High
Court in the impugned judgment. A look at the impugned judgment
of the High Court shows that the Division Bench of the High
Court was swayed away unduly by the animosity attributed by the
respondent to a member of the local Bar and the Assistant Public
Prosecutor. If it is assumed for a minute that the charges were
on the basis of complaints initiated by persons bearing ill-will
and motive against the respondent. Even then, such ill-will and
motive may not make the conduct of the respondent in not
preparing judgments but pronouncing the outcome of the case, a
condonable conduct. It is true that some of the charges revolve
around judicial pronouncements and the judicial decision-making
processes and that they cannot per se, without anything more,
form the foundation for departmental proceedings. Therefore,
this Court is ignoring those charges. But the charges which
revolve around gross negligence and callousness on the part of
the respondent in not preparing/dictating judgments, but
providing a fait accompli, is completely unacceptable and
unbecoming of a judicial officer. [Paras 13, 14, 15][59-F-H; 60-A-
B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
3. The defence taken by the respondent that the lack of
experience and the inefficiency on the part of the stenographer
has to be blamed, for the whole text of the judgment not getting
ready even afte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.