G Narahari Vs the Secretary

1C. MRS. VAISHNAVI NAIK DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. G. NARAHARI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT 26/49, 'SAPTASWARA', 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, MUNESHWARANAGAR, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560061. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.H.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SECRETARY OFFICE OF HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR STATE OF KARNATAKA, RAJ BHAVAN, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶17

BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶19

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA ACCOUNTS AND ENTITLEMENT, BANGALORE-560001.

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4;

¶23

SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SMT. B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 06.04.2011 UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER BY ORDER BEARING NO.DPAR 56 LAC 2010 DATED 06.04.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO WRIT PETITION AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS INCLUDING PAYMENT OF FULL SALARY AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION TREATING THE PERIOD AS SPENT ON DUTY, REINSTATEMENT IN SERVICE, PAYMENT OF FULL SALARY AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE PERIOD OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

¶25

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 01.10.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶27

ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶29

CAV ORDER

¶30

The petitioner, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives, has challenged an order of penalty bearing No.DPAR 56 LAC 2010 dated 06.04.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 and has sought for consequential reliefs including but not limited to full salary and allowance.

¶31

(i) The petitioner, then, a District and Sessions Judge in the super time scale was working at Kolar as Principal District Judge from May 1999 to May 2002. He was transferred to Belgaum as Principal District Judge with effect from 25.07.2002. The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court received an anonymous complaint against the petitioner on 23.01.2003 that the petitioner used to spend long hours speaking to someone on the phone, sometimes during Court hours. The Registrar (Vigilance) sought permission of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to investigate the complaint. The Hon’ble Chief Justice in terms of an order dated 29.01.2003 directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct a discreet enquiry and submit a report. The Registrar

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶34

(Vigilance) was also directed to seek some clarification from the petitioner. Following this, the Registrar (Vigilance) by a letter dated 29.01.2003 sought eight clarifications from the petitioner. These clarifications centered around telephone calls made by the petitioner from phone No.420851 in his residence at Belgaum and from the phone No.420500 at his office at Belgaum to the telephone Nos.08152-48010 and 08152-26981 at Kolar between 27.05.2002 to 31.12.2002.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner submitted his reply on 04.02.2003. He alleged that the Registrar (Vigilance) who was investigating the case was junior than the petitioner by five ranks in the list of seniority prepared by the selecting authority. Therefore, he contended that the Registrar (Vigilance) was not competent to investigate into any complaint against him. He alleged that the eagerness of the Registrar (Vigilance) to investigate the complaint against him was evident from the fact that he commenced investigation even before the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed an order. He therefore contended that the commencement of the investigation leading upto the impugned order was the result of an incompetent fact finding enquiry

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶38

made by the Registrar (Vigilance) who was thoroughly biased against him.

¶39

The petitioner contends that after holding a discreet enquiry, the Registrar (Vigilance) submitted a report on 05.03.2003 stating that there was an unholy relationship between the petitioner and Smt. S.A.Padmamma who was then working as a typist in the District Court, Kolar and that the clarifications submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable. The petitioner contended that the Registrar (Vigilance) had received the hand written statements of various employees in the District Court, Kolar, but in so far as the statement of Smt. S.A.Padmamma is concerned, it was recorded in the handwriting of the Registrar(vigilance) and alleged that it was done with an ulterior motive. He alleged that all persons whose statements were obtained were employees of the same Court and all of them were literate. However, he alleged that for the reasons unknown, the statement of Smt. S.A.Padmamma, was recorded by the Registrar (Vigilance) in his handwriting. He further alleged that if a free and honest statement of Smt. S.A.Padmamma, was recorded he would have been exonerated of any misconduct. The petitioner contends that

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶42

the report was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice who directed it to be placed before the Administrative Committee-I. The Administrative Committee-I after perusing the material on record, directed a notice to be issued to the petitioner.

¶43

The petitioner contends that the Registrar General issued a notice on 14.01.2004 in HVC No.19/2003 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The petitioner alleged that the Registrar General, who issued the notice, was also junior than him and was placed below him at serial number three in the seniority list.

¶44

The petitioner submitted his reply on 09.02.2004

¶45

explaining that he had made phone calls to speak to his brother's son Mr.P.Giridhar, who allegedly was employed at the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL). He also enclosed therewith an affidavit of Mr. P.Giridhar and an affidavit of Smt. S.A.Padmamma. He also forwarded a demand draft for a sum of Rs.12,000/- being the telephone charges for the calls that he made between 27.05.2002 to 31.12.2002.

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶48

Later a disciplinary proceedings in D.I. No.1/2005 was initiated against the petitioner by issuing articles of charge dated 10.03.2005 along with statement of imputation, list of witnesses and list of documents. The petitioner contends that these charges were based on the report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance) and the statements that he had obtained and recorded during the enquiry. The petitioner submitted his reply to the articles of charge on 24.03.2005. He contended that between 29.01.2003, when the Registrar (Vigilance) sought clarification from the petitioner and 10.03.2005 when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, two District Judges who were junior than him were elevated to the Bench of this Court.

¶49

The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges and the enquiry was adjourned after issuing summons to three witnesses.

¶50

The petitioner contends that all matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against District Judges are to be decided by the Administrative Committee No.1 comprising of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and four puisne judges. Amongst

¶51

8 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶53

them, Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. L. Dattu, as he then was, became member of Administrative Committee No.1, after retirement of Hon'ble Justice A. M. Farooq on 16.08.2005 and Hon'ble Justice S.R.Bannurmath, as he then was, became a member on 01.05.2006.

¶54

When the enquiry was in progress, the Registrar General addressed another letter dated 17/18-08-2005 bearing No.HVC No.152/2005, on the direction of the Administrative Committee No.1 stating that the Court would hold another enquiry bearing D.I.No.8/2005 and enclosed therewith articles of charge, statement of imputation, list of witnesses and list of documents and called upon the petitioner to submit his reply. The petitioner contends that this was based on a discreet enquiry conducted by the then Registrar (Vigilance) - Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, who was much junior than the petitioner in the rank of District Judges. He alleged that the Registrar (Vigilance) had recorded the statement of persons without the authority of law. He claimed that the first and third charges framed against him in D.I.No.8/2005 related to Sessions case No.16/1991 which was tried by him in-part, when he was working as Principal District Judge, Kolar. The second charge

¶55

9 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶57

related to persuading Smt. S.A.Padmamma, who was cited as a witness in support of the first charge, not to support the enquiry and to dissuade her from giving correct statements during the preliminary enquiry held against the petitioner by the Registrar (Vigilance) in HVC No.152/2005. The fourth charge against the petitioner was that he had acquired a mobile phone bearing subscriber No.9448585276 in the month of October 2004 and mobile phone bearing No.9886350998, the cost of each mobile exceeded a sum of Rs.2,000/- and that the petitioner had not obtained previous sanction for such purchase. The fifth charge related to granting permission to Smt. S.A.Padmamma to pursue LL.B Course in Bangalore or KGF.

¶58

The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges. However, the reply was found to be not satisfactory and an enquiry was ordered which was entrusted to the same learned Judge who was inquiring D.I.No.1/2005. D.I. No.8/2005 was clubbed with D.I. No.1/2005 by consent of the parties so as to record common evidence. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges framed in D.I. No.8/2005. The petitioner was

¶59

10 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶61

placed under suspension in terms of an order dated 05.09.2005, which he described, was wholly unnecessary.

¶62

At the enquiry, oath was administered to the witness which was opposed by the petitioner. The inquiring authority held that any ruling on the objection would have far reaching consequences and therefore felt it appropriate to hear the presenting officer. He contends that a similar objection was raised by another judicial officer and at a meeting of the full Court, a resolution dated 25.11.2005 was passed enabling the inquiring authority to administer oath to the witnesses. The petitioner terms this resolution as arbitrary and therefore, all statements of the witnesses who were administered oath had to be eschewed.

¶63

The petitioner contends that after perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the articles of charge in D.I.No.8/2005, this Court found that the petitioner had made unwarranted and derogatory remarks against the Court. Therefore, the Registrar General on directions of the Administrative Committee-I, issued a show cause notice dated 05.10.2005 calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary

¶64

11 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶66

proceedings should not be initiated against him, as the allegations made against the Court amounted to breach of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The petitioner replied to the notice on 29.10.2005. The Administrative Committee-I, not being satisfied with the explanation offered, initiated D.I.No.12/2005. The petitioner alleged that by this time, two more juniors were elevated to the Bench of this Court. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25.02.2006 which was not accepted and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu who was part of the Administrative Committee - I which had rejected the earlier defence statement of the petitioner and brought the enquiries under The Karnataka Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement Of Attendance Of Witnesses, Production Of Documents And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1981' for short) was appointed as an inquiring authority in respect of D.I.No.12/2005. All the enquiries were later clubbed.

¶67

The petitioner contends that on 05.12.2005 when

¶68

the enquiry resumed for recording evidence in support of the charges, he sought a copy of the proceedings of the Administrative Committee-I for the reasons mentioned therein.

¶69

12 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶71

Smt. S.A.Padmamma was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked through her. This witness was treated as hostile and during her cross-examination, Exs.P5(e) to 5(h), (j) to (n) were marked. She was further cross-examined on 17.12.2005 when Exs.P1(a) to (d) and Ex.P5(p) were marked. She was cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner and Exs.D(1) to D(12) were marked. Later on the same day, the presenting officer examined Smt.B.M.Sarvamangala, a typist, at Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar as PW.2 and marked Ex.P7 which was her statement recorded before the Registrar (Vigilance) during his discreet enquiry. Thereafter another typist named Smt.Dhanalakshmi was examined as PW.3 and her statement was marked as Ex.P8. The then Registrar (General) - Mr.A.S.Pachapure, as he then was, was examined as PW.4 and Exs.P9 to P20 were marked. During his cross-examination, Ex.D13 to D17 were confronted and marked. The then Registrar (Vigilance) named Mr.Veeranna G.Tigadi, was examined as PW.5 and Exs.P21 to P36 were marked during his cross-examination and Ex.D18 was confronted and marked.

¶72

13 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶74

The petitioner contends that on 09.02.2007, Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.L.Dattu was appointed as the Chief Justice of High Court of Chattisgarh. He therefore, returned the enquiry files and in his place, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath was appointed as the inquiring authority. The petitioner contends that in the above enquiries, the evidence commenced on 05.12.2005 and concluded on 02.06.2007 and immediately thereafter Mr. A.S.Pachapure, was elevated to the bench of this Court on 04.07.2007.

¶75

The petitioner contends that the enquiry proceeded at a snails' pace which acted detrimental to his interest. He claimed that throughout the enquiry, he never sought any unreasonable adjournment. He contends that at the time of his appointment as the inquiring authority, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath was part of Administrative Committee - I. He contends that though the enquiry was concluded on 13.08.2007, the inquiring authority submitted his report dated 16.10.2008 holding that all the charges against the petitioner in D.I.Nos.1/2005 and 8/2005 were proved. In so far as D.I. No.12/2005, the inquiring authority held that the first charge was proved and the second charge was not proved. He

¶76

14 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶78

contends that during the course of enquiry, one more district judge junior than the petitioner was elevated to the Bench of this Court. Thus, he contends that he was punished even before he was held guilty, in as much as, six persons who were junior than him were elevated to the bench of this Court.

¶79

The report of the enquiry was forwarded to him by the Registrar General on 11.03.2009 and he was called upon to show cause as to why penalty of dismissal from service under Rule 8 (viii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 should not be imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 28.03.2009 contending that entire enquiry was biased and based on reports of his juniors who had vested interest to indict him, to further their own career prospects. He also alleged that the disciplinary authority ought not to have appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath as enquiry officers, as both of them were members of Administrative Committee - I which had perused the reply submitted by the petitioner to show cause notices and had held that the reply was not acceptable. The petitioner contends that after receipt of reply, no orders were passed for two years, compelling him

¶80

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶81

to submit a representation on 13.01.2010 for an early decision. Later by order bearing No.DPAR 56 LAC 2010 dated 06.04.2011, His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka dismissed the petitioner from service as provided under Rule 8(viii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The petitioner questioned the impugned order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but it refused to exercise jurisdiction. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders.

¶82

The petitioner has raised the following grounds in support of the writ petition:

¶83

(i) That two learned judges of this Court who were appointed as inquiring officers must not have been appointed, as they were members of the Administrative Committee - I which had already decided that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the articles of charge were not satisfactory. In support his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Justice P.D.Dinakaran Vs. Hon'ble

¶84

Judges Inquiry committee - AIR 2011 SC 3711.

¶85

16 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶87

(ii) He referred to the six postulates of a fair enquiry that was summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ,

¶88

AIR 2006 SC 1748 and contends that every one of the

¶89

above postulates were breached in the instant case.

¶90

(iii) He also contends that the impugned order was bereft of reasoning and in support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd., Vs. Union of India - AIR 1976 SC 1785.

¶91

(iv) He also contends that the findings of the inquiring authority were grossly perverse. He claimed that during cross examination of PW.1, an answer of PW.1 was recorded wrongly as 'YES' instead of 'NO'. He alleged that though the said mistake was pointed to the inquiring authority who agreed to correct it, did not do so. Likewise, at page Nos.31 and 32 of the evidence of PW.1, she stated that she never informed the petitioner about the involvement of her husband and father-inlaw in the criminal case and she did not deliberately abstain from court when the case was called. He contends that when a

¶92

17 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶94

question was put to PW.1 whether the petitioner knew the husband of Smt. S.A.Padmamma, her father-in-law and brother-in-law, who are accused, she answered in the negative, but was wrongly recorded as 'YES'. He contends that since there was a change of enquiry officer, he could not get the record corrected. He contends that this mistake was treated as an admission and ignoring the voluminous evidence, it was held that the charges in D.I.No.8/2005 was proved. Therefore, he contends that the proceedings of inquiring authority were perverse and the impugned order based on such perverse proceedings cannot be sustained.

¶95

(v) He further contends that the order of penalty should fail as the allegation made in D.I. No.12/2005 did not amount to a misconduct.

¶96

(vi) He alleged that the petitioner was entitled to predecision hearing at the hands of the disciplinary authority before it accepted the adverse findings against him and recorded a finding of guilt. He alleged that the petitioner was not heard before being held guilty. In support his contention,

¶97

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶98

he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.I. Shephard Vs. Union of India - AIR 1988 SC 686.

¶99

(vii) He also contended that the petitioner was kept under suspension for an unduly long period, which was deliberately done, to elevate juniors than him as judges of this Court. He contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.P.Gupta Vs. Union of India - AIR 1987 SC 2257 had set down the consequences that should follow if departmental proceedings is not concluded within a reasonable time. Therefore the impugned order is arbitrary, discriminatory oppressive, unfair and unjust, perverse, contrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶100

(i) The petition is opposed by the respondents who have filed a detailed statement of objections. They have contended that after receipt of anonymous complaint, the Registrar (Vigilance), secured print outs of the bills relating to phone in the office of the District Judge at Belgaum and at the residence of the petitioner at Belgaum.

¶101

(ii) It is contended that nearly 713 phone calls were made between May 2002 to December 2002. They contended

¶102

19 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶104

that number of STD phone calls were made to phone number - 226981 which is the telephone number of computer centre at the District Court, Kolar and one more number - 248264, which

¶105

was registered in the name of husband of Smt. S.A.Padmamma and a phone number - 408010 registered in the name of brother of Smt. S.A.Padmamma. The Registrar (Vigilance) then reported the matter to the Administrative Judge in-charge of Belgaum district and after his approval, the file was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

¶106

(iii) It is contended that on the instructions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, a discreet enquiry was conducted by Registrar (Vigilance) at Belgaum and Kolar and it was found that the petitioner was frequently making phone calls to Smt. S.A.Padmamma, a court official, on the telephone at computer centre at Kolar Court as well as to her residential phone and also phone number of her brother. These phone calls were made between 9.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m, and on an average, there were not less than 3 to 4 calls per day. It is claimed that on enquiry with Smt. S.A.Padmamma, she gave evasive replies. It was therefore felt that there was some unholy relationship between petitioner and

¶107

20 -

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶109

Smt.S.A.Padmamma. Thus, on the basis of the above, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The respondents have denied the allegations of bias against the Registrar (Vigilance) and it is claimed that the Registrar (Vigilance) had performed his official duty as per the directions of his superiors.

¶110

(iv) They also contended that disciplinary authority did not act blindly or without application of mind while accepting the report submitted by Registrar (Vigilance).

¶111

(v) They contended that in view of seriousness of the charges, the petitioner was placed under suspension, and after considering his defence, Administrative Committee- I appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu as the inquiring authority to conduct the enquiry. During the course of enquiry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu was appointed as Chief Justice of Chattisgarh High Court and therefore, the administrative Committee - I vide resolution dated 01.03.2007 appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath as the enquiry officer to conduct a detailed enquiry. The enquiry authority submitted report holding that the charges in D.I.No.1/2005 and 8/2005 were proved and the

¶112

21 -

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶114

first charge in D.I.No.12/2005 was not proved. The Administrative Committee - I at its meeting dated 02.03.2009, accepted the report of the inquiring authority and proposed punishment of dismissal from service, in respect of each of the charge in D.I. Nos.1/2005 and 8/2005 and 12/2005.

¶115

(vi) It also directed the Registrar (General) to issue a second show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the proposed penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice which was again placed before the Administrative Committee - I. The Administrative Committee - I at the meeting held on 30.08.2010, found no justification and hence resolved to recommend penalty of dismissal from service. The Full Court vide resolution dated 08.10.2010 resolved that it is a fit case to confirm the proposed punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 8 (viii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and accordingly recommended to the State Government vide letter dated 21.10.2010. The State Government vide the impugned order imposed the punishment of dismissal from service.

¶116

22 -

¶117

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶118

(vii) It is contended that in reply to the second show cause notice, the petitioner had requested to condone his misconduct or else permit him to retire from service voluntarily. It is contended that adequate opportunities were granted to the petitioner as provided under Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1957. It is contended that from the resolution of Administrative Committee - I held on 27.09.2005, 07.06.2006 and 02.03.2009, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath did not participate in the deliberation in respect of the subject relating to the petitioner and therefore, no allegations of prejudice or bias could be attributed to them.

¶119

(viii) It is contended that the High Court acts through

¶120

the committee constituted for convenient transaction of business and the acts of committee are really the acts of the High Court itself. In support of this contention, it relied upon the judgment reported in the case of State of U.P. Vs.

¶121

B.D.Tripathi [1978 (2) ALR 1].

¶122

(ix) It is contended that the enquiry commencing from the initiation, till the imposition of penalty has been considered

¶123

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶124

by the Full Court and therefore there were no infirmities in the impugned order or in the procedure which resulted in the impugned order. It is also contended that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the charges against him.

¶125

(x) In so far as the allegations that the answers given by PW.1 was recorded wrongly, it is stated that every day's proceedings were signed by the petitioner and therefore, he cannot now claim that some answers were wrongly recorded.

¶126

(i) The learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submitted that Sri. A.S.Pachapure, hastily commenced the enquiry on 23.01.2003 even without obtaining the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who gave permission only on 29.01.2003. He contends that the investigating officer who recorded the statements of the witnesses, was partisan and biased, since the career prospects of the petitioner conflicted with the prospects of the Registrar (Vigilance). Therefore, it is contended that the whole enquiry is vitiated by bias.

¶127

24 -

¶128

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶129

(ii) He next contended that all disciplinary proceedings relating to a District Judge from the stage of decision to initiate a disciplinary enquiry, till the stage of imposition of punishment, are decided by Administrative Committee - I consisting of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and four judges of the High Court. He contends that Administrative Committee - I rejected the explanation of the petitioner and ordered initiation of disciplinary proceedings, following which a charge memo was issued. The Administrative Committee - I which had rejected the reply statement of the petitioner, appointed a member of Administrative Committee - I namely Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu as the Inquiring Authority. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu, issued notice of enquiry and recorded the plea of the petitioner and issued summons to the petitioner. Later, The Administrative Committee - I again decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in D.I.No.8/2005 and the Administrative Committee - I rejected the defence statement submitted by the petitioner and appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu as inquiring authority. He contended that in the statement of objections filed to this writ petition, the respondents have not denied the participation of Hon'ble Mr.

¶130

25 -

¶131

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶132

Justice H.L.Dattu in Administrative Committee - I meeting held on 14.11.2005, though they denied his participation in the meetings held on 27.09.2005, 07.06.2006 and 02.03.2009.

¶133

(iii) He contended that the petitioner objected to administering oath to Smt. S.A.Padmamma and the enquiry was adjourned to 24.11.2005 to hear the presenting officer. After hearing both the counsel, the enquiry was adjourned to 25.11.2005 to enable the presenting officer to furnish clarification. On 25.11.2005, the High Court authorized Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu under Section 4(2) of Act, 1981 to exercise the powers as provided under Section 5 of Act, 1981 in respect of enquiry into D.I.Nos.1/2005 and 8/2005.

¶134

(iv) He contends that the Administrative Committee - I took exception to the contents of statement of defence submitted by the petitioner to charge memo in D.I.No.8/2005 and a show cause notice was issued. The petitioner submitted his reply which was rejected by Administrative Committee - I which resolved to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

¶135

(v) The petitioner protested against the notification dated 25.11.2005 by which, Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu was

¶136

26 -

¶137

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶138

authorized under the Act of 1981 and contended that it amounted to changing the rules of the game during the course the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner sought copies of the proceedings of Administrative Committee - I pertaining to the rejection of the defence statement dated 16.09.2005, the show cause notice dated 05.10.2005, proceedings of Administrative Committee - I rejecting the representation dated 09.09.2005 seeking change of headquarter and decision of Administrative Committee - I leading to notification dated 25.11.2005. He contends that no order was passed by the inquiring authority on the copies sought by the petitioner as stated above.

¶139

(vi) He contends that the proceedings were all conducted by the inquiring authority, who are members of Administrative Committee - I and therefore, the enquiry is not fair and proper. He contends that there was no reason mentioned as to why, any other judge of the Court was not appointed as an inquiring authority. Therefore, he contends that the enquiry is vitiated by bias and prejudice. He further contends that the reply to the second show cause notice was not considered, thereby making it an empty formality.

¶140

27 -

¶141

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶142

The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended as follows:

¶143

(i) That the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. She contends that the allegations of prejudice and bias against the Registrar (Vigilance) and Registrar General are all baseless, as the enquiry was based upon material information sourced on the directions of the superiors of Registrar (Vigilance) and Registrar General.

¶144

(ii) She also contends that though Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu was a member of Administrative Committee - I which decided to conduct an enquiry and though he was appointed as an inquiring authority, he did not participate in the deliberation of the Administrative Committee - I. Similarly, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath also did not participate in deliberation of the Administrative Committee - I. Therefore, she contends that there is nothing amiss about the procedure in conduct of

¶145

enquiry against the petitioner.

¶146

28 -

¶147

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶148

(iii) This Court after hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner passed an order dated 30.08.2024 which reads as follows:

¶149

" i. This application is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner under Rule 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 read with Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following particulars:

¶150

"1. Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 and names of the members of the Administrative Committee No.1 who attended the meeting in which decision was taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings in D.I No.8/2005 pursuant to which Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputations dated 18.08.2005 came to be issued to the Petitioner.

¶151

2. Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 and names of the members of the Administrative Committee No.1 in which decision was taken to place the Petitioner under suspension pursuant to which order of suspension dated 5-09-2005 came to issued.

¶152

29 -

¶153

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶154

3. Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 and names of the members of the Administrative Committee No.1 in which decision was taken to reject the representation of the Petitioner to permit change of Headquarters during Suspension was rejected.

¶155

4. Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 held on 14.11.2005 and names of the members of the Administrative Committee No.1 who attended the meeting in which decision was taken to reject the defence statement dated 16.09.2005 submitted by the Petitioner in answer to articles of charges and statement of imputations in D.I No.8/2005 and to appoint Hon'ble Sri. Justice H. L. Dattu as Inquiring Authority.

¶156

5. Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No. 1 and names of the members of the Administrative Committee No.1 who attended the meeting in which decision was taken to issue notification under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses, Production of Documents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 authorising Hon'ble Sri. Justice H. L.

¶157

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶158

30 -

¶159

Dattu, Inquiring Authority to exercise the powers specified under Section 5 of the said Act pursuant to which Notification dated 25.11.2005 came to be issued.

¶160

6. Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 and names of the members of the Administrative Committee No.1 who attended the meeting in which decision was taken to issue Show Cause Notice to the petitioner pursuant to which Show Cause Notice No. HVC 152/05 (D.I. 8/2005) dated 5.10.2005 came to be issued to the Petitioner.

¶161

7. Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 and names of the members of the Administrative Committee No.1 who attended the meeting in which decision was taken to reject reply dated 29.10.2005 submitted by the Petitioner in response to notice dated 5.10.2005 and to issue Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputations pursuant to which Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputations dated 13.02.2006 came to be issued to the Petitioner in D.I. No. 12/2005.

¶162

8. Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 held on 7.06.2006 and

¶163

31 -

¶164

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶165

names of the members of the Administrative Committee No.1 who attended the meeting in which decision was taken to reject the statement of defence dated 25.02.2006 submitted by the Petitioner in answer to Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputations dated 13.02.2006 and to appoint Hon'ble Sri. Justice H. L. Dattu as Inquiring Authority to inquire into charges levelled against the Petitioner in D.I. 12/2005.

¶166

9. Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 held on 1.03.2007 and names of the members of the Administrative Committee No.1 who attended the meeting in which decision was taken to appoint Hon'ble Justice S. R. Bannurmath as the Inquiring Authority pursuant to which order dated 9-03-2007 came to be issued.

¶167

10. All other Proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 from 16.08.2005 till the 08-10-2010 wherein the matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner leading to impugned penalty were discussed or decided."

¶168

ii. The aforesaid documents are proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 which oversaw the

¶169

32 -

¶170

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶171

enquiry proceedings against the deceased petitioner till the Committee decided to impose a penalty of dismissal from service against the deceased petitioner.

¶172

iii. Learned senior counsel representing the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner submitted that these documents and information are necessary to establish that the process undertaken by the Administrative Committee No.1 was prejudicial and affected the petitioner during the course of the enquiry in various ways than one. He contends that without these documents, it may not be possible for him to establish various contentions urged by the deceased petitioner in response to the show cause notice.

¶173

iv. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed this application contending that the proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 are confidential and cannot be parted with as it would contain the information of various other persons against whom proceedings are initiated. She, therefore, contends that no direction can be issued on this application in favour of the petitioner.

¶174

v. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶175

vi. The petitioner had challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service. Various contentions are raised in this writ petition contending that many of the

¶176

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶177

Enquiry Officers had participated in the proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1. The respondent No.2 cannot and should not shy away from furnishing documents, which relate to the deceased petitioner to establish that the proceedings undertaken are in accordance with law. Therefore, in order to afford an opportunity to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner to establish their contentions, it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to furnish an extract of the proceedings of the Administrative Committee No.1 relating to the petitioner from 16.08.2005 to 08.10.2010. It is needless to mention that the respondent No.2 shall mask the proceedings of any other person or any other item which is considered by the Administrative Committee No.1. This shall be complied within a period of two weeks.

¶178

vii. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2022 is disposed off.

¶179

List this petition on 20.09.2024."

¶180

(iv) In compliance with the above direction, the

¶181

respondents have furnished document Nos.1 to 9 which relate to the meetings of Administrative Committee - I held on 02.02.2006, 04.11.2005, 09.08.2005, 27.09.2005 and 07.06.2006 and 01.03.2007, 02.03.2009, 30.08.2010 and 08.10.2010 concerning the petitioner. However, the learned

¶182

34 -

¶183

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶184

Senior counsel for the petitioner did not address any arguments on the documents furnished.

¶185

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶186

senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶187

On the receipt of an anonymous letter dated 23.01.2003, the Registrar (Vigilance) had placed it before the concerned Administrative Judge who approved the same to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Based on the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, a discreet enquiry was conducted at Belgaum and Kolar by the Registrar (Vigilance). Following this, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice in H.V.C -19/2003 as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice which was found to be not satisfactory, following which, a charge memo was issued in D.I. No.1/2005 and the following were the charges:

¶188

" Charge No. I:

¶189

That the DJO while working as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum had telephonic conversation with one Smt. Padmamma (who was a Court hall

¶190

35 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶191

Typist at District Court, Kolar, when DJO was working as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar) from 27.05.2002 to 31.12.2012 without legitimate reasons/purpose.

¶192

Charge No.II:

¶193

That the petitioner while working so, had misused the office telephone bearing No.420500 as well as residence telephone No.420851 to converse with Smt. Padmamma, Typist at District Court, Kolar and had made calls to telephone No.26981 installed in the Computer Centre, District Court, Kolar, to telephone bearing No.48010 installed in the residence of Sri. Venkataswamy, elder brother of Smt. Padmamma at Sugutur, Kolar District and also the telephone bearing No.48264 installed of Smt. Padmamma at Sugutur, Kolar District. As the petitioner had no legitimate reasons/ purposes converse with Smt. Padmamma, more particularly to her residence telephone bearing No.48264 and to the telephone bearing No.48010 installed in the residence of Sri. Venkataswamy, elder brother of Smt. Padmamma.

¶194

Charge No.III:

¶195

That the DJO while working so, had conversed with Smt. Padmamma as aforestated from 27.05.2002 to 31.12.2002. The (number of calls as many as 727) frequency of calls, duration of calls, time of calls clearly demonstrate that the Petitioner had misused official telephone. That the petitioner being a District Judge had spent much of his time be conversing with Smt. Padmamma over phone, abandoning his court

¶196

36 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶197

work and official work, thereby rededicated his duty as Judicial Officer.

¶198

Charge No.IV:

¶199

That the Petitioner being fully aware that the official phone cannot be used for un-official purpose (more so when the calls are STD calls), to conceal his conversation with Smt. Padmamma and also to avoid payment of telephone charges for using the phone for unofficial purposes."

¶200

The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges which was not accepted by the Administrative Committee - I which then comprised of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and four puisne judges of this Court, one of whom was Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu. The Administrative Committee - I decided to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner and appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu, as the enquiry officer in D.I.No.1/2005.

¶201

Later, the Registrar (General) on the directions of Administrative Committee - I addressed a letter, dated 18.08.2005 bearing H.C.V No.152/2005 informing him that the Administrative Committee - I was holding another enquiry against the petitioner in D.I.No.8/2005 and enclosed the

¶202

37 -

¶203

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶204

articles of charge, statement of imputation, list of witness and list of documents. The following were the articles of charge:

¶205

" Charge No.I:

¶206

That the petitioner while working as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar from 24.05.1999 to 26.05.2002 Smt. Padmamma was working as typist in the open court of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, Accused No.1 to 65 in Sessions Case No.16/1991 were facing trial on the allegation that they were member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the committed object of the said unlawful assembly, committed murder of Ghouse Peer and Sheik Mohammed and others offences during the intervening night of 06.10.1990 and 07.10.1990 at Sugutoor village.

¶207

Accused No.5 Sharnappa is the husband of Smt. Padmamma. Accused No.6 Vekataswamy is her father-in-law and Accused No.33, Narayana Murthy is her brother in law and they faced in the said Sessions Case along with other accused persons.

¶208

That the petitioner was very intimate with Smt. Padmamma and her husband and recorded evidence of P.W.11 to 16 in the said Sessions Case. The depositaries were typed by Padmamma in the open court to his dictation. The petitioner framed and posed questions to the accused while recording statement of accused Nos.1 to 65 under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The answers given by accused Nos.5, 6, 33 and some other accused

¶209

38 -

¶210

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶211

persons to the questions under 313 Cr.P.C., are recorded in the hand writing of Smt. Padmamma. The petitioner knowing that close relatives of Smt. Padmamma were accused before him, tried and disposed off the said case by the judgment dated 19.07.2000, acquitting all the accused persons in the said case and thereby committed judicial impropriety, showing lack of integrity and devotion to duty.

¶212

Charge No.II:

¶213

That a departmental inquiry in D.I.1/5 is initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that when he was working as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagaum he had telephonic conversation with Smt. Padmamma from his official phone between 27.05.2002 to 31.12.2002 to the official phone of District Judge, Kolar, telephone installed in the computer center of District Court, telephone bearing No.48010 (Present No.248010) and to the telephone at her residence no.48624 (Present 248264) on 727 occasions and in the said departmental enquiry, in the charge sheet filed against him in DI.1/05 Smt. Padmamma is one of the witness for the disciplinary authority, even then he called Smt. Padmamma on her residential telephone through his mobile phone bearing NO.94485276 on 266 occasions between 01.01.2005 and 17.05.2005 with a dishonest intention to persuade her to give evidence in his favour in DI No.1/05 and also to dissuade her from giving correct statements to suit to his conveniences during the preliminary inquiry held against him by

¶214

39 -

¶215

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶216

the Registrar Vigilance in connection with HVC 152/05 as a result, she has given inconsistent and contradictory statements before the Registrar Vigilance and there unholy relationship between Smt. Padmamma and petitioner.

¶217

Charge No.III:

¶218

The fact Sri. Shankarappa, husband of Smt. Padamamma is an accused in Sessions case No.16/91 before him was within his knowledge. Smt. Padmamma and her husband were invited to attend a religious function in his house. Inviting an accused person in a case before him is an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.

¶219

Charge No.IV:

¶220

That the petitioner acquired mobile telephone bearing No.944858276 in the month of October 2004 and another mobile telephone bearing No.9886350998. The cost of each mobile telephone exceeded Rs.2000/- and the petitioner neither obtained previous sanction for purchase of the same nor he has given intimation of acquisition of the said telephones to the Hon'ble High Court and thus he has violated Rules 23(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶221

Charge No.V:

¶222

That on 11.01.2002 Smt. Padmamma filed application before the petitioner seeking permission to prosecute LLB Course in a college at Bangalore or KGF and he without ascertaining the name and place

¶223

40 -

¶224

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶225

of the college where she intends to prosecute her studies and without ascertaining the teaching hours of the said college, granted permission to prosecuting further education and she is now prosecuting her LLB course at KGF. This is at a distance of about 35 Kms. From Kolar and the teaching hours of the said college are between 10.30 am. and 4 p.m. which conflicts with the office hours of the Court. The petitioner granted her permission without ascertains the above said necessary facts to favour her in contravention of Rules."

¶226

In response to this, the petitioner submitted his reply making allegations against the members of Administrative Committee – I, which purportedly was not in good taste and amounted to an act of insubordination. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued as to why another enquiry should not be initiated against him, which was replied but was rejected by Administrative Committee - I and article of charges along with the statement of imputation, list of witnesses and list of documents who were issued in D.I.No. 12/2005. The following were the article of charges:

¶227

" Charge No.I:

¶228

That the Petitioner while working as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Article of Charges and Statement of Imputations in D.I.8/05 for his

¶229

41 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶230

misconduct were served on him. The petitioner submitted the written statement dated 16.09.2005, wherein he has made unwarranted and derogatory remarks against the High Court in an audacious manner and shown disrespect. The written statement submitted by him containing comments is a very bad taste and he has made the imputations and allegations against the High Court thereby displaying the highest act of insubordination. The tenor of his written statement and the language used by him clearly indicates that he has crossed all judicial standards. The petitioner was in the habit of making reckless and irresponsible allegations against the High Court. His observations are in the nature of making fun of the charges in a sarcastic way and is not expected of from a judicial officer.

¶231

Charge No.II

¶232

That the petitioner working as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar has recorded the statement of the accused in sessions case no.16/91, under section 313 Cr.P.C the procedure followed by him while recording the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is totally against law and his reply in this regard shows that he has converted the most salutary faction of criminal court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. into an empty formality and his stance is in the nature of teaching law to the High Court and his remarks in his reply are totally uncalled for. The statements made by him amount

¶233

42 -

¶234

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶235

to highest maintain devotion to duty and the acts committed and statements made by him are unbecoming of a Judicial Officer which amounts to misconduct."

¶236

The petitioner filed his statement of defence to each

¶237

of the charges which were found to be not satisfactory, resulting in all the departmental enquires being entrusted to Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu.

¶238

The documents furnished by the respondents show that at the meeting of Administrative Committee - I held on 14.11.2005 considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice in H.V.C No.152/2005, Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.L.Dattu did not participate in the deliberation. The committee rejected the reply and directed the Registrar General to frame articles of charge and place it before the committee for approval.

¶239

Similarly, at the meeting of Administrative Committee - I held on 27.09.2005, the committee resolved to appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu as the inquiring authority, in so far as, it related to D.I.No.12/2005 and the proceedings sheet show that Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu did not

¶240

43 -

¶241

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶242

participate in deliberations held on 27.09.2005. It is therefore apparent that Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu did not participate in the proceedings of the Administrative Committee - I, in so far as it related to the decision to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

¶243

Similarly, in the proceedings dated 01.03.2007, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath (as he then was) appointed in the place of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu who conducted the proceedings. Later, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath took charge and submitted a report on D.I.Nos.1/2005, 8/2005 and 12/2005. In the deliberations of Administrative Committee - I held on 02.03.2009, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath did not participate in the deliberations.

¶244

It is therefore crystal clear that from the date of initiation of enquiry against the petitioner, and the date of submission of final report by the inquiring authority, there was no procedural lapse and the attribute of bias and prejudice against Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath is not justified.

¶245

44 -

¶246

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶247

The High Court of Karnataka has constituted committees in exercise of its power under the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. These committees are constituted amongst the judges of the Court for the sake of conduct of business on various aspects concerning the Court and its administration. The allegation that Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Bannurmath were privy to decision, prior to initiation of enquiry itself does not make the exercise of power biased or prejudicial against the petitioner. Though, the defence of bias and prejudice would be a valid defence in a domestic enquiry, in the instant case, in view of certain facts that are not in dispute which are recorded below, the allegation of bias and prejudice pales into insignificance. The Apex Court in State of UP vs B.D.Tripathi [1978(2) ALR 1] held as follows:

¶248

"…..Bearing in mind therefore the nature of the power which the article confers on the High Courts, we are of the opinion that it is wrong to characterize as 'delegatioin' the process whereby the entire High Court authorizes a Judge or some of the Judge of the High Court to act on behalf of the whole Court……

¶249

Administrative functions are only a part, though an important part, of the High Courts, Constitutional

¶250

45 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶251

functions, Judicial functions ought to occupy and do in fact consume the best part of a judges time. For balancing these two fold functions it is inevitable that the administrative duties should be left to be discharged by some on behalf of all the Judges………

¶252

It is therefore inappropriate to say that Judge or a Committee of Judges of the High Court authorized by the Court to act on its behalf is a delegate of the Court………."

¶253

Before I peruse the material before the inquiring

¶254

authority and the correctness of the report of the inquiring authority, it is appropriate to first record a few facts that are not in dispute.

¶255

The petitioner was working as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar from May 1999 to May 2002. During his tenure Smt.S.A.Padmamma was a Typist in the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar and she was assigned to type the proceedings/evidence in the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar. That Sessions Case No.16/1991 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was pending trial before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, where the husband of Smt.S.A.Padmamma, her father-in-law and brother-in-law were

¶256

46 -

¶257

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶258

arraigned as accused Nos.5, 6 and 33. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C of accused No.5, 6 and 33 was recorded by Smt.S.A.Padmamma and the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was recorded by the petitioner. Thereafter, all the accused were acquitted of the offences on 19.07.2000. Later the said Smt.S.A.Padmamma was transferred to Chintamani but was re-deputed back to Kolar, at the instance of the petitioner who was still the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar and her transfer was thereafter cancelled. The said Smt.S.A.Padmamma had sought for permission to prosecute LL.B., either at Bengaluru or at KGF on 11.01.2002 and the petitioner being the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar had granted the permission on the same day. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to Belgaum with effect from 25.07.2002 as Principal District and Sessions Judge. The said Smt.S.A.Padmamma continued to work at Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar. The petitioner had made 713 telephone calls from the office and residence of the District Judge, Belgaum to the telephone number of the Computer Center of the District Judge, Kolar, to the telephone

¶259

47 -

¶260

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶261

number of the husband and brother of Smt.S.A.Padmamma between May 2002 to December 2002.

¶262

Since the charges in D.I.8/2005 were based on imputations that have happened between 1999-2000, which is the earliest in time, the charges in D.I.8/2005 are dealt with first.

¶263

In reply to the articles of charge in D.I.No.8/2005, petitioner stated that he was not aware that accused Nos.5, 6 and 33 in Sessions Case No.16/1991 were related to Smt.S.A.Padmamma when he was hearing the same. He denied that he was intimate with Smt.S.A.Padmamma and her husband. He claimed that when the evidence of the witnesses in the case was typed in the Court hall by Smt.S.A.Padmamma, he was not aware of the relationship of Smt.S.A.Padmamma with accused No.5, 6 and 33. He claimed that all the witnesses whose evidence was recorded had read their deposition and had signed it, and acknowledged its correctness.

¶264

In so far as the recording the statement of the accused in Sessions Case No.16/1991 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he contended that “ in the case in question, the answers

¶265

48 -

¶266

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶267

have been filled up in the handwriting of staff of the employees of the Court and it is only incidental that in respect of three accused i.e., accused No.5, 6 and 33 and some other accused persons, the answers are recorded with the handwriting of Smt.S.A.Padmamma. He claimed that he did not know until the disposal of the criminal case about the relationship of Smt.Padmamma and accused No.5, 6 and 33 and further claimed that if he knew about the relationship, he would have kept Smt.S.A.Padmamma out of work in the said case. ”

¶268

In so far as Charge No.2 is concerned, he did not deny this charge but claimed that “ from the documents made available to him, he does not find any inconsistency as alleged in the statement of Smt.S.A.Padmamma.”

¶269

In so far as Charge No.3 is concerned, he replied that he did not know that the husband of Smt.S.A.Padmamma was an accused in S.C.No.16/1991. However, he contended that after the trial in the case was over and the case was disposed off, husband of Smt.S.A.Padmamma was invited to his house to attend a religious function. He claimed that until the trial was concluded and case was disposed off, neither

¶270

49 -

¶271

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶272

Smt.S.A.Padmamma nor her husband was invited to any function at his residence.

¶273

In so far as Charge No.4 is concerned, he replied that there was no need for prior sanction to purchase a mobile phone but claimed that the Conduct Rules only mandated to report the acquisition of the mobile phone.

¶274

As regards Charge No.5, he did not dispute about the permission granted to Smt.S.A.Padmamma to prosecute LL.B. course but claimed that permission was subject to the condition that it will be at her own cost and shall not be in detriment to her official duties. He claimed that his successors did not withdraw the permission which established that the permission granted did not affect her official duty/work. He claimed that he did not do any official favour to Smt.S.A.Padmamma in issuing the NOC as the same was done routinely to number of employees.

¶275

Smt.S.A.Padmamma was examined as PW.1 before the inquiring authority and the relevant portions of her evidence is extracted below:

¶276

50 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶277

“There was a criminal case against my husband, my brother-in-law and father-in-law. When Sri Narahari was the Principal District Judge, the aforesaid criminal case was still pending. I do not remember whether the aforesaid criminal case was disposed off when Sri Narahari was the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar. I have typed the evidence of one or two witnesses in the aforesaid criminal case recorded by the Principal District and Sessions Judge.”

¶278

To a pointed question whether she had typed the evidence of PW.11 to PW.16 in S.C.No.16/1991 as dictated by Sri Narahari,

¶279

she stated as follows :-

¶280

“I have typed the evidence of some of the witnesses in the said case.”

¶281

She further deposed :-

¶282

“Accused No.1 to 65 in Sessions Case are all acquitted by judgment dated 19.07.2000 by Sri Narahari.”

¶283

She was treated as a hostile witness by the Presenting officer since she stated that some of her answers were elicited by force, coercion and pressure and was subjected to further cross-examination. During her cross-examination the following questions were put to her and her answers were as follows :-

¶284

51 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶285

Q. : I put it to you that before Sri Narahari could take charge as District and Sessions Judge in Kolar, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.10 was already recorded ?

¶286

Ans : I do not know.

¶287

Q. : I put it to you that the evidence of PW.11 and PW.12 was recorded by Sri Narahari on 03.05.2000?

¶288

Ans : I do not know.

¶289

Q. : I put it to you that on 04.05.2000 the evidence of PW.13 was recorded by Sri Narahari ?

¶290

Ans : I do not know.

¶291

Q. : I put it to you that on 23.05.2000 Sri Narahari recorded the statement of PW.14, 15 and 16 ?

¶292

Ans : I do not know.

¶293

Q. : I put it to you that on 03.05.2000, 04.05.2000 and 23.05.2000, after going through the order sheet it cannot be said that you are the court typist on those days ?

¶294

Ans : Yes.

¶295

Q. : Whether the statement made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by accused No.1 is in the handwriting of Sri Narahari?

¶296

Ans : Yes.

¶297

Q. : After recording the statement of Accused No.1 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C since the questions and

¶298

52 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶299

answers were same insofar as the other accused are concerned, whether Sri Narahari asked the other Court official to write the answers of the other accused ?

¶300

Ans: Sri Narahari did not ask us to write the statement of the other accused persons made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but it is the Bench Clerk who asked us to write the statement of the other accused person by supplying the original copy of the statement made by accused No.1.

¶301

Q. : I put it to you that the other employees and myself totaling about 3 or 5 working in the District Court have written the answers of accused No.2 to 64 relying upon the statement of accused No.1 made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C ?

¶302

Ans : Yes.

¶303

Q. : I put it to you that when the trial SC No.16/1991 was conducted by Sri Narahari did you inform that your husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law were the accused persons ?

¶304

Ans: At no point of time I had told him about the involvement by husband, father-in-law and brotherin-law to Sri Narahari.

¶305

Q. : I put it to you that when the trial SC.No.16/1991 was conducted did Sri Narahari know that your husband, father-in-law, and brother-in-law were accused persons among others ?

¶306

Ans : Yes.

¶307

53 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶308

As regards the petitioner being acquainted with the husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law of Smt.S.A.Padmamma, the petitioner replied to the articles of charge in D.I.No.8/2005 that after the case in S.C.No.16/1991 was disposed off, he invited the husband of Smt.S.A.Padmamma to a religious function in his house. However, Smt.S.A.Padmamma deposed as follows :-

¶309

“Myself and my husband used to attend the functions organized by Sri Narahari. I introduced my husband to Sri Narahari after he was transferred from Kolar to Belgaum. Just two months before Sri Narahari was transferred to Belgaum, he was organized a function and to that function myself and my husband were invited and my husband has attended that function.”

¶310

Her statement recorded before the Registrar (Vigilance) on 02.07.2005 was marked as Ex.P5(g) where she stated as under:

¶311

“My husband and myself have gone to the residence of Sri Narahari at Kolar as I was invited by Mrs.Narahari as I was carrying. At that time my husband and myself were served with breakfast after observing formalities that are performed when a pregnant woman is invited. Sri Narahari was treating all the staff members

¶312

54 -

¶313

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶314

as his family members. Sri Narahari was known to my husband and myself quite well.”

¶315

The husband and father-in-law of

¶316

Smt.S.A.Padmamma were accused of murdering Ghouse Peer and Shaik Mohammad during the intervening night of 06.10.1990 and 07.10.1990 at Sugatur Village. The husband of Smt.S.A.Padmamma was arraigned as accused No.5 and her father-in-law was arraigned as accused No.6 and brother-in-law was arraigned as accused No.33. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely PWs.14, 15 and 16 were recorded by the petitioner and the same is evident from the following suggestion put by the counsel for the petitioner to PW.1 – Smt.S.A.Padmamma :-

¶317

Q. : I put it to you that 23.05.2000, Sri Narahari had recorded the statements of PW.14, 15 and 16 ?

¶318

It is also evident that the evidence of PW.11, 12 and 13 was recorded by the petitioner in view of the following suggestions:

¶319

After going through the recorded evidence of PWs.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 will you be in a position to tell who has typed those evidences in Court hall ?

¶320

55 -

¶321

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶322

Therefore, it can be safely held that the petitioner was the one who had recorded the evidence of prosecution witnesses namely PWs.11 to 16 in CC.16/91.

¶323

Though the petitioner claimed that he did not know the father-in-law and brother-in-law of Smt.S.A.Padmamma, he did not adduce evidence before the inquiring authority to establish the said fact. Having regard to the fact that Smt.S.A.Padmamma was a Court typist who had recorded the deposition of many of the prosecution witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the statement of Smt.S.A.Padmamma that the petitioner knew that her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law were accused in criminal case, it is more than probable that the petitioner had used his office to help Smt.S.A.Padmamma and her family members and in helping their acquittal in the case. Ideally, the petitioner on coming to know that the family members of the Court typist were involved in the offence, he must have either transferred it to any other court or must have transferred the court typist to any other court to ensure transparency. Therefore, Charge No.1 framed in D.I.No.8/2005 was rightly held to be proved by the inquiring authority and the Full Court

¶324

56 -

¶325

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶326

was also justified in accepting the report of the inquiring authority.

¶327

45 In so far as Charge No.2 is concerned, this related to continuous calls by the petitioner to the telephone of Smt.S.A.Padmamma between 01.01.2005 and 03.07.2005. It was alleged that the petitioner had made his calls to compel Smt.S.A.Padamma to give evidence in his favour in D.I.No.1/2005 and to compel her to give correct statement to suit his convenience.

¶328

In support of this charge, Smt.S.A.Padmamma deposed that “ I have also made an affidavit dated 05.02.2004. The said affidavit was given by Sri Narahari, the delinquent officer. After swearing to the affidavit I have returned the same to Sri Narahari. The said affidavit was marked as Ex.P.4. ”

¶329

She further deposed, “ after disciplinary enquiry proceedings were initiated against Sri Narahari, he was speaking to me on the telephone. He was speaking to me over my residential number 248264. It is true that he has spoken to me on the telephone during the period from 18.05.2005 to

¶330

57 -

¶331

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶332

03.07.2005 .” The statement by Smt.S.A.Padmamma before the Registrar (Vigilance) was marked as Ex.P.5.

¶333

The above piece of evidence establishes that the petitioner had compelled Smt.S.A.Padmamma to give evidence in his favour in D.I.No.1/2005 and therefore the report of the inquiring authority that the Charge No.2 was proved is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.

¶334

In so far as Charge No.3 is concerned, the petitioner admitted that he had invited the husband of Smt.S.A.Padmamma to his house but claimed that it was after disposal of the case. However, the conduct of the petitioner pre and post the disposal of the criminal case and the conduct of the petitioner in inviting the husband of Smt.S.A.Padmamma to his house for religious functions was unbecoming of a judicial officer, as he was bound to exercise caution and restraint, which he did not and therefore the finding recorded by the inquiring authority is probable and deserves acceptance.

¶335

In so far as Charge No.4 is concerned, the petitioner ought to have obtain permission before purchasing the mobile phone which is the mandate of Rule 23(3) of the

¶336

58 -

¶337

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶338

K.C.S. Conduct Rules, 1966. The petitioner did not dispute that he possessed two mobile phones but claimed that there was no need for prior sanction as Rule 23(2) of Rules, 1966 mandated that the purchase of the mobile phones had to be reported.

¶339

As regards Charge No.5, Smt.S.A.Padmamma had admittedly requested for permission to prosecute LL.B at Bengaluru or at KGF on 11.01.2002. The petitioner had granted the permission on the same day following which Smt.S.A.Padmamma enrolled in LL.B. course at KGF, located at 35 kilometers from Kolar. It is not in dispute that the teaching hours in the college was between 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. The petitioner in his reply claimed that the permission granted to Sri.S.A.Padamma was subject to the condition that she should bear the cost and it shall be without detriment to her official duties. If Smt.S.A.Padmamma was a Court Typist, it is difficult to accept the claim of petitioner that the permission was subject to conditions stated above.

¶340

The conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner was close with Smt.S.A.Padmamma in particular and not with any other lady staff. This is all the more evident from

¶341

59 -

¶342

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶343

the fact that though Smt.S.A.Padmamma was transferred from Kolar to Chintamani during the year 2001, later the petitioner passed an order deputing Smt.S.A.Padmamma from Chintamani to Kolar, which generates an impression that the petitioner had some affinity towards Smt.S.A.Padmamma, which could be due to the favours shown to the husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law in S.C.No.16/1991. Therefore, the finding of the inquiring authority on Charge No.5 is just and proper and the finding of the Full Court that Charge No.5 was proved does not warrant any interference.

¶344

Now coming to the charges framed against the petitioner in D.I.No.1/2005, the petitioner did not dispute that he had made telephone calls from his office and residence at Belgaum to speak to Smt.S.A.Padmamma at the District Court, Kolar between 27.05.2002 to 31.12.2002. However, he claimed that the conversation between him and Smt.Padmamma was for a legitimate reason and purpose. However as to what was the legitimate purpose or reason, was not explained by the petitioner by entering the witness box. In his reply to the show cause notice issued by the Registrar (General), marked as Ex.P.18, the petitioner offered to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/-

¶345

60 -

¶346

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶347

being the call charges and he submitted an unconditional apology for having made the phone calls. Along with his reply to the show cause notice he attached an affidavit of Mr.P.Giridhar, who claimed that he was introduced to Smt.S.A.Padmamma by the petitioner. He claimed that he was visiting Power Grid Corporation of India at Arahalli on KolarChintamani Road. He claimed that after petitioner was transferred from Kolar to Belgaum he used to keep in touch with the petitioner and whenver he was at Arahalli he used to visit the house of Smt.S.A.Padmamma at Sugaturu. However, the petitioner did not examine Mr.P.Giridhar before the inquiry. It is therefore clear that the petitioner was in touch with Smt.S.A.Padmamma by calling her at the District Court, Kolar. It is also relevant to note that Smt.S.A.Padamma had availed maternity leave from October, 2002 to December, 2002 and was at a Sugaturu. The petitioner seems to have called Smt.S.A.Padamma from the office phone at Belgaum thereby establishing beyond doubt that the petitioner was keeping in touch with Smt.S.A.Padmamma during office hours. Therefore, the findings of the inquiring authority on Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 in D.I.No.1/2005 were justified.

¶348

61 - NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶349

The Full Court perused the conduct of the petitioner

¶350

in making such huge number of telephone calls just to keep in touch with Smt.S.A.Padmamma and therefore the Full Court was justified in holding that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.

¶351

As regards charges leveled in D.I.No.12/2005, the Charge No.1 relates to derogatory remarks against the High Court while submitting the reply to the show cause notice in HVC No.152/2005. A perusal of the reply of petitioner shows that the petitioner was venting out his grievance desperately and hence there was no need for making a mountain of mole hill. Hence, the finding on Charge No.1 in D.I.No.12/2005 was unwarranted.

¶352

If the charges in D.I.No.1/2005 are viewed in isolation, they were not too serious to hand out a punishment of dismissal from service. However, charges in D.I. No.1/2005 when viewed along with the charges framed in D.I.No.8/2005, gives a bid picture making it more than probable that the petitioner was involved in judicial impropriety.

¶353

62 -

¶354

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶355

The reasons for allowing a typist to skip work to pursue her course does generate some amount of suspicion as to whether the same was done in usual course and whether the same yardstick was applied to other employees. The fact that the petitioner used to call PW.1 at the computer section after his transfer to Belgaum and the fact that he used to make such calls during the office hours also generates suspicion about the legitimacy of those calls.

¶356

If the entire charges are perused, they revolve around Smt.S.A.Padmamma, her husband and the petitioner, which invariably point out to the fact that the petitioner had used his office to favour Smt. S.A.Padmamma and her family members in the criminal case which ultimately resulted in an acquittal of all the accused. The petitioner who was transferred from Kolar to Belgaum in May, 2002 is stated to have made 713 calls to either Smt. S.A.Padmamma or to the house of her brother-in-law at Sugutur. The petitioner has claimed that these calls were made to speak to his nephew Mr. Giridhar. However the said Mr. Giridar was not examined before the inquiring authority. Therefore, the petitioner was not able to establish his defence that the calls made by him were in fact

¶357

63 -

¶358

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶359

for the purpose of speaking to Mr.Giridhar and not to Smt. S.A.Padmamma or to her husband.

¶360

If we consider the facts from this perspective, the probable conclusion that could be drawn is that petitioner in order to favour Smt. S.A.Padmamma had misused his office and after his transfer to Belgaum was continuously in touch with Smt. S.A.Padmamma.

¶361

Though several contentions of bias and prejudice are urged, this Court after perusing the records does not see any bias or prejudice, as alleged but on the contrary, the facts which are extracted from the evidence of PW.1 itself weaves a story about the involvement of the petitioner and Smt.S.A.Padmamma and therefore, all allegations of noncompliance of procedure, violation of principles of natural justice, bias and prejudice pales into insignificance. Thus, the decision relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts.

¶362

A judicial officer however high or low, is expected to maintain the highest standards of morality, decency, dignity and integrity. The higher he grows in the echelons greater

¶363

64 -

¶364

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶365

would be the scrutiny and he is bound to conduct himself with probity. After all, it is this belief of the citizenry that propels an ordinary individual to be referred as your 'Honor' or 'Your Lordship' and revere him as God. Every act of a judge therefore, should be measured, assessed and judgment should be delivered with absolute conviction and devotion.

¶366

In the case on hand, the petitioner was a super time scale District Judge working as a Principal District Judge at Kolar. The petitioner had a fair chance of being considered to be elevated as a judge of High Court. The then Registrar (Vigilance) who was in receipt of the anonymous letter, was no doubt, junior than the petitioner. Similarly, the Registrar (General) who had issued the articles of charge on the direction of Administrative Committee - I, was also junior than the petitioner. The petitioner seems to have leveraged this fact to accuse the Registrar (Vigilance) of implicating him in the case so as to further his own career prospects. This, in the opinion of this Court is hard to accept, as the Registrar (Vigilance) had taken steps, only after he was directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to conduct a discreet enquiry which disclosed that the petitioner had called Smt. S.A.Padmamma on 713 occasions

¶367

65 -

¶368

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶369

from Belgaum. The further enquiry into the case revealed that a criminal case where Smt. S.A.Padmamma's husband, fatherin-law and brother-in-law were involved, was tried and acquitted by the petitioner, before he was transferred to Belgaum. The fact that Smt. S.A.Padmamma had recorded the evidence of few witnesses and 313 statement of her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law and later all the accused were acquitted, gives rise to some doubt about the complicity of the petitioner in helping Smt. S.A.Padmamma and her family members to be acquitted in the criminal case. Once the petitioner was aware, that Smt. S.A. Padmamma's family members were involved, he ought to have recused from the case or must have transferred out Smt. S.A.Padmamma to another Court. However the conduct of the petitioner in getting back Smt. S.A.Padmamma from Chintamani to Kolar and in allowing her to pursue LL.B course during the day, confounds the suspicion. Therefore, though charges in D.I.No.1/2005 if viewed in isolation, does not amount to a serious misconduct but when viewed through the charges in D.I.No.8/2005 are serious in nature. The respondents have proved the charges in D.I.Nos.1/2005 and 8/2005 and the preponderance of

¶370

66 -

¶371

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶372

probabilities only indicate that all these were done only to help Smt. S.A.Padmamma and her family members to get out of the criminal case. Therefore, no exception can be taken from the finding of the inquiring authority as well as the disciplinary authority that the charges in D.I. No.1/2005 and 8/2005 were proved.

¶373

As regards the charge in D.I.No.12/2005, the outbursts of the petitioner while replying to the articles of charge in HVC 152/2005 cannot be the basis of a charge that he had lowered the reputation of the High Court. If the petitioner felt that he was victimized, he was entitled to urge it in his defence. However, that would not amount to misconduct and therefore the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner in DI12/2005 was wholly unwarranted.

¶374

Having regard to the seriousness of the charges in D.I.8/2005 coupled with the conduct of the petitioner in trying to meddle with the process of the domestic enquiry which was the basis of charge in D.I.1/2005, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service was justified. Hence the impugned order does not warrant interference.

¶375

67 -

¶376

NC: 2025:KHC:8182 WP No. 28099 of 2012

¶377

Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and is

¶378

dismissed .

¶379

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶380

THM - para Nos.1-10 HJ - para 10 till end. List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

G Narahari v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Narahari v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraj Reddy Vs Venugopala Reddy

Sri Ashoka @ Dhananjaya Vs Smt K Jayalakshmamma Since Deceased by Her Lrs

Mr. C Madesha Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

G S Bhat S/O Sri Shankar S Bhat Vs Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd.

Anjanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

G Rajendra Naidu Vs Mohan Das