V.R. KATARKI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 22-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
V.R. KATARKI 
1 
A 
v. 
' . 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
"' 
MARCH 22, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: Karnataka Judicial Service-Civil Judge-Dismissal 
on ground of irregularities in discharge of official duties-Validity of-
Quantum of punishment-Whether proportionate-Confidence of 
i 
parties-Foundation of Judicial system-Hence, not to be affected. 
The appellant, a Civil Judge, was dismissed by the High Court on c 
the ground that he had committed certain irregularities in the adjudica-
lion of references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by 
(i) writing letters to the Land Acquisition Officer, for enforcing the 
Award, even though under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Code, 
1908, decrees against the State were not available for execution before 
D 
90 days, (ii) fixing valuation higher than the legitimate one for the 
lands, and (iii) using order-sheets got printed by the Advocate for the 
parties. He was also alleged to have purchased a pump-set costing 
Rs.1,000 without prior permission from the appropriate authorities. 
His challenge to the dismissal was rejected by the High Court on the 
judicial side. Hence, the appeal. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, but modifying the quantum of punish-
ment, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 It is of paramount importance that judicial officers 
must act above board and keep the channel of justice clean. Confidence 
F 
of the litigating parties in Judicial system is the very foundation of the 
system and nothing should be done which would affect that. [SC] 
... 
1 
1.2 Fixation of valuation is a judicial act. E'Ven if the assessement 
of valuation is modified or affirmed in appeal as a part of the judicial 
I 
process, the conduct of the judicial officer drawable from an overall 
G 
..., 
picture of the matter would yet be afailable to be looked into. In 
appropriate cases it may be open to draw inferences even from judicial 
acts. [3F] 
..,._ 
1.3 On a consideration of the materials on record, there is some 
' "' 
scope for accepting the appellant's stand that there was some mistake in 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
2 
SLPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
fixing the valuation but no ill motive. He is, therefore, entitled to 
benefit of doubt. However, it cannot be said that he had acted inno-
cently in writing letters for enforcing of the awards. Similarly, he had 
acted indiscreetly in allowing the order-sheets got printed by a particu-
lar Advocate to be used. Since the appellant possessed 43 acres of 
agricultural lands, no serious view need be taken of the purchase of 
pump-set without prior permission. [3G-H, 4C, E, F-G] 
' 
1.4 Ordinarily, justification of the quantum of punishment 
imposed in a disciplinary action is not for the court to decide and there 
have been occasions when this Court has taken interference by the High 
Courts on quantum of punishment as an act in excess of jurisdiction. 
But keeping the residue of the charges in view, the dismissal of the 
appellant from service was out of proportion and compulsory retire-
ment would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appellant shall be 
taken to have been compulsorily retired from service from the date his 
dismissal became operative. [4H, SA-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4392 
of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30. 1.1986 of the Karnataka 
High Court in W.P. No. 19086 of 1985. 
E 
M.C. Bhandare, Rajeshwar Thakur, Ranji Thomas and T. 
Sridharan for the Appellant. 
B.B. Acharaya, Advocate General and P.R. Ramasesh for the 
Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
The appellant was a Civil Judge in the Karnataka Judicial Service 
and was posted at Bagalkot in the district of Bijapur. Some time after 
G 
1979, acquisition proceedings under Central Act 1 of 1894 for the 
purposes of Upper Krishna Project which was being funded by the 
World Bank had been undertaken and references under section 18 of 
the Act were pending which came to adjudicated upon by the appel-
lant. On the basis of information reaching the High Court of several 
" 
' 
.. 
irregularities therein, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against 
.• 
H the appellant with many allegations but the main ones with which we 
V.R. KATARKI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
3 
1 
are concerned are: (I) notwithstanding the provision contained in 
section 82 of the Code of Gvil Procedure that decrees against the State 
A 
were not available to be executed for 90

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