Sri S R Thulasiram Vs the Registrar General

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.817, 104D RITE GRAND RESIDENCY, 8^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, BEL LAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH, CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDYARANYAPURA, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED BANGALORE-560097. 30.08.2024

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1(a) TO 1(c)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (ADMN-1), LAW DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEARING NO.LAW.84.LAC.2015 BENGALURU DATED 14.07.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 (STATED AS THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner (since deceased) has challenged an order bearing No.LAW.84.LAC.2015, Bengaluru dated 14.07.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 (stated as respondent No.1 in the prayer portion of the petition), by which he was dismissed from service under sub-rule (viii) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶27

respondents to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits.

¶28

The petitioner contends that he was selected and appointed by the respondent No.2 as a Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) on 18.10.1993 and was thereafter promoted as a Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) on 28.05.2003. While he was working as Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., at Chintamani, the respondent No.1 on the basis of a report of the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka, dated 22.07.2007, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, by serving Articles of charge dated 14/15.10.2008. The petitioner submitted his provisional reply and denied the charges leveled against him. He thereafter submitted an additional reply to the Articles of charge. The respondent No.1 was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and therefore, appointed the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura as Inquiring Authority in terms of an order dated 01.09.2010. The Presenting Officer examined PWs.1 to 23 and marked documents - Exs.P1 to P41. The petitioner, in support of his defence, examined three witnesses as DWs.1 to 3. The petitioner was examined as DW.4 and he marked documents as Exs.D1 to D11. The Inquiring Authority

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶30

recorded the plea of the petitioner and called upon him and the Presenting Officer to submit their respective defence pleadings. Following this, the Inquiring Authority submitted its report on 02.06.2014 holding that charge Nos.2, 5 and 12 were not proved and the other charges were proved. A copy of the report was enclosed with the second show cause notice dated 05.12.2014. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why a major penalty should not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 26.12.2014 and requested to exonerate him of the charges and to drop all further proceedings. The report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the second show cause notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner were placed before the Full Court for consideration. The Full Court vide its proceedings dated 27.04.2015, resolved to recommend dismissal of the petitioner from service. Following this, the respondent No.1 sent a proposal to the State Government to take further action. Consequent thereto, the respondent No.2 by an order dated 14.07.2015, dismissed the petitioner from service.

¶31

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

¶32

has filed this petition.

¶33

5 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶36

that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that some of the charges against the petitioner were proved is perverse in as much as the Inquiring Authority did not appreciate the evidence of the petitioner led in his defence. That the disciplinary proceedings were held on the basis of a complaint lodged by an Advocate (Mr. Karunakar Ameena) and also on the basis of an anonymous complaint said to have been filed by the members of the Mangalore Bar Association. He contends that the Registrar (Vigilance) failed to record the statement of the complainant - Mr. Karunakar Ameena but he recorded the statement/s of some Advocates at Mangaluru who did not give any adverse statement against the petitioner. He contends that not recording the statement of the complainant and not examining the complainant in the departmental enquiry is fatal. He also contends that no personal staff except a van driver of the pooled vehicle (Sri Sheena Purusha) were examined. The said Sri Sheena Purusha did not support the allegations against the petitioner. He contends that this driver drove the pooled Van in which 12 officers travelled along with the petitioner and none of them were questioned or enquired regarding the

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶38

allegations made in the Articles of charge. He contends that though it was alleged that the petitioner had made the Doctors wait before their evidence was recorded in Motor Vehicle Claim (MVC) cases, none of them were enquired nor their statements were recorded. PW.12 who was an Advocate turned hostile and denied any harassment of the Doctors by the petitioner. He also contends that no Policeman or officer was examined to establish that the petitioner had ill-treated or abused them when they attended the Court. He also contends that in Chintamani, the statement of a few staff was recorded but no enquiry was made with the Advocates practicing. The staff who were enquired stated that they had not seen the petitioner attending the Court after consuming alcohol. He contends that nothing prevented the respondent No.1 to get the petitioner examined to check whether he had the habit of consuming alcohol that too during the working hours of the Court. He contends that the statement of the staff that whenever they visited the chamber of the petitioner, they could sense a smell of alcohol and gutka is not sufficient to hold that the charges against the petitioner were proved. He contends that none of the witnesses who examined had clearly stated that the

¶39

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶40

petitioner was in the habit of coming to the Court in a drunken state. He also contends that the charge that the petitioner had allowed Stenographers to prepare the judgments in MVC cases was wholly untrue as it was the petitioner who dictated the judgments and the same were transcribed by the Stenographers. He contends that none of the Advocates who had filed the claim petitions had made any allegations in that regard.

¶41

He contends that the petitioner had put in 23 years of continuous service and had maintained an excellent track record with no allegations of misconduct in the past. That the petitioner was not accused of any favouritism or corruption or financial irregularities and therefore, the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate.

¶42

He contends that the petitioner has now expired

¶43

and has left behind him his wife, a son and a daughter. He contends that in view of the order of dismissal, the dependents of the petitioner are deprived of family pension. He therefore, prays that the impugned order of dismissal be reconsidered.

¶44

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶45

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the charges against the petitioner were serious in nature and the Enquiry Officer has carefully considered the evidence on record and has rightly held that the charges against the petitioner are proved. He contends that the deceased petitioner is a Judicial Officer and therefore, he is expected to conduct himself with utmost circumspection and devotion to duty. He submitted that this Court while in judgment over the report of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Reviewing Authority cannot re-appreciate the facts to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad [(2010) 2 SCC (L & S) 101] .

¶46

He submitted that PW.3 who was the Sheristedar in

¶47

the Court of the Senior Civil judge, Chintamani, was examined as PW.3, who deposed that he used to go to the chamber of the petitioner with the concerned files and letters and on one such day when he visited the chamber, he sensed stench of alcohol

¶48

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶49

in the chamber. He also deposed that the petitioner used to consume alcohol and used to come to the Court and conduct the proceedings and that his behaviour with the staff in the Court was indifferent. He also deposed that the Stenographer in the Court of the petitioner told him that she was preparing the judgments on her own. He also deposed that on 14.08.2007, the Principal District Judge, Kolar came to the Court on a surprise visit and on that day, the petitioner had consumed alcohol. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner. Similarly, he referred to the evidence of PW.4, the Stenographer in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chintamani during the relevant time. She also deposed that whenever she went to the petitioner's chamber, she could sense alcohol. She deposed that she used to type and submit the judgments in criminal cases and MVC cases. She claimed that after her transfer to Kolar, she had requested the Sheristedar to send her Last Pay Certificate (LPC) for which he replied that he would send it after ten pending judgments were typed. She deposed that the petitioner did not dictate any judgment out of the ten cases but she verified the files and typed the judgments on the basis of her experience. She

¶50

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶51

deposed that she was hesitant to go to the chamber of the petitioner as he was under the influence of alcohol. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, therefore, contended that this evidence was more than enough to hold that the charges against the petitioner were proved. He stated that even PW.6, who was working as Accounts Sheristedar in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chintamani during the relevant time, also deposed that whenever he visited the chamber of the petitioner, he could sense the smell of alcohol. He, therefore, submitted that the report of the Enquiry officer and the consequent order passed by the Disciplinary Authority are all based on evidence and having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and undesirability to continue the petitioner as a Judicial Officer, the Disciplinary Authority felt it appropriate to hand over a major punishment of removal from service. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 dismissing the petitioner from service does not warrant any interference.

¶52

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶53

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶54

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶55

The Articles of charge framed against the petitioner are as follows:

¶56

"CHARGE I: That while you were working as II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Mangalore, from 26.5.03 to 11.12.03 and I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Mangalore from 12.12.03 to 29.5.06 several complaints were received against you and the discreet enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, with the members of the Bar Association, Mangalore, revealed that you were in the habit of coming to the open Court late after consuming alcohol, and rising early; that you were indulging in corrupt practices, favouring a set of advocates; that you were arrogant with Senior Advocates; that you were harassing the advocates and witnesses, in particular doctors coming to the court as witnesses in MV cases to wait unnecessarily for a long time for recording their evidence.

¶57

Thereby, you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶58

CHARGE II: That while you were so working at Mangalore, you were found showing soft corner to one Miss. Kavitha Shanboug, Advocate of Mangalore, passing favourable orders in the cases in which she was appearing; that you were granting instantaneous relief in almost every case filed by the said advocate, whereas you

¶59

12 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶61

were declining to extend the same benefit in cases of similar nature filed by other advocates, thus leading other advocates including some senior advocates to engage the services of Miss Kavitha Shanboug, Advocate, to obtain favourable orders.

¶62

Thereby you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer which amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶63

CHARGE III: That while you were so working at Mangalore, you have not intimated to the High Court the source of deposit by cash of Rs.76,366/- in between 5.4.04 to 10.10.06 and Rs.39,000/- in between 21.9.05 to 4.3.06 in your SB Account No.08801022137 at Canara Bank, Shedigudde Branch, Mangalore.

¶64

Thereby, you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) (i) & (ii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶65

CHARGE-IV: That while you were working as Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Addl. MACT, Chintamani from 8.6.2006 to 28.11.07, you were found coming to the open court after consuming alcohol; that you were in the habit of coming to the court late and rising early and sometimes failing to come to the open court during second half; that you were

¶66

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶67

in the habit of not attending the open court on many days and instructing the Bench clerk to give adjournments and signing the typed order sheets of the cases posted for the day, in the chambers to give an impression that the concerned party/advocate prayed for adjournments in the open court.

¶68

Thereby you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 (1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶69

CHARGE V: That while you were so working at Chintamani, you were in the habit of securing liquor especially "Signature" brand Whisky from Sri. Narayanappa, SDA, Sri. Rajanna, Attender and Sri. Ananth, Police Constable attached to the Court on working days to your chamber and coming to the open court after consuming the liquor, that the staff of the Court at Chintamani were upset with your rude behaviour under the influence of alcohol.

¶70

Thereby you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 (1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶71

CHARGE VI: That while you were so working at Chintamani, the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar, during his visit to your Court in the afternoon of 14.8.07,

¶72

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶73

he found you in your chamber, during the Court hours, having consumed alcohol.

¶74

The discreet enquiry by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar, further reveals that you did not attend the Court on 14.8.07 and that on your instructions, the bench clerk adjourned all the 70 cases listed for the day by 11.30 a.m. on that day; that the District Judge reports that on many occasions, you retired to the chambers before the stipulated Court hours and that you have not signed the Court diary for about 10 days prior to 14.8.07 and had left some blanks in the Court diary.

¶75

Thereby you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act of unbecoming of a Judicial Officer which amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) (i)(ii) & (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶76

CHARGE VII: That while you were so working at Chintamani, you were in the habit of indulging in corrupt activities by passing favourable orders in Motor vehicle cases in favour of set of lawyers routed through Sri.Narayanappa, MVC Pending Clerk.

¶77

Thereby you have failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶78

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶79

CHARGE VIII: That while you were so working at Chintamani, you were influencing and coercing panel of advocates of Insurance Company to take steps to get more amount of compensation towards the damage caused to your Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA19 P-7425 of 2006 model which met with an accident, near Devanahalli, a couple of weeks prior to the enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance).

¶80

Thereby you committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer which amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶81

CHARGE-IX: That while you were so working at Chintamani, you were found directing the Stenographers to type the judgments by themselves by seeing the records of the cases posted for judgment, instead of you dictating the judgments and also insisting the stenographers to put the endorsement to the effect that the judgments are typed by them on-line to the computer, as per your dictation.

¶82

That you did not dictate judgments in MVC Nos.68/04, 11/06, 20/07, 46/05, 56/02 and 72/05 to Smt. Leelavathi, Stenographer of your Court; that the said Stenographer herself prepared the Judgments, by seeing the records and thereafter you proceeded to pronounce the judgments in the above cases; that on your direction, the said Smt. Leelavathi, Stenographer attended your Court on 9.11.07, though she was transferred from your Court, and prepared judgments

¶83

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶84

herself by seeing the records in MVC No.76/05, Misc.Nos.20/02, 7/06, 11/02, O.S. Nos.117/06, 145/06, 11/06, 92/05, 84/05, 94/99.

¶85

That you did not dictate the full text of Judgments in MVC Nos.26/01, 13/01, 85/04, 29/02 and 79-84/01 to Sri.R.Nagadeva, Stenographer of your Court and that you had dictated only the amount of compensation awarded under various heads and that the rest of the text of Judgment was prepared by the said Stenographer himself and thereafter you proceeded to pronounce the judgments in the above cases.

¶86

Thereby you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶87

CHARGE-X: That while you were so working at Chintamani, you directed Sri Devaraja, Typist, to type an order in O.S. No.338/2007 to the effect of granting exparte temporary injunction as prayed in I. A. No.I filed in the said case; that on the next day, you torn off the Order sheet in the said case and got prepared another order sheet passing orders therein to the effect that "caveat is pending - issue notice on I.A.I and suit summons to the defendants by 5.1.08"; that the advocate for the Plaintiff after going through the exparte order of temporary injunction granted by you earlier, had applied

¶88

17 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶90

for issuance of certified copy of the order and the said copying application is still pending disposal.

¶91

Thereby, you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶92

CHARGE-XI: That while you were so working at Chintamani, you had availed loan of Rs.1.5 lakh on 31.11.07 from SBI, Chintamani Branch repayable in monthly instalments of Rs.5,280/-, commencing from 1.1.08, without obtaining prior permission of the High Court to raise the said loan.

¶93

Thereby you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶94

CHARGE-XII: That you did not disclose the source of huge cash on hand as reported in your Assets and Liabilities statements submitted for the year ending shown below:

¶95

Sl.	Period	Amount of cash on hand
No.		(in rupees)
1.	31.12.2005	1,42,000-00
2.	31.12.2006	1,20,000-00

¶96

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶97

Thereby you have failed to maintain honesty, absolute integrity, and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) (i) & (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶98

CHARGE-XIII: That you did not inform about owning mobile phone bearing Nos.9880119875 and 9972848992 to the High Court either through a letter of intimation immediately after purchase of the same or shown in your annual assets and liabilities statement for the relevant period.

¶99

Thus, you have failed to maintain honesty and committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶100

CHARGE-XIV: That as per the report of the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka, you had attended the 7^th Annual Conference of Chairmen of District Legal Services Authorities and Taluka Legal Services Committee and Member Secretaries of District Legal Services Authorities on 11.8.2007 at 10.00 a.m. in Patron-in-Chief Hall, II Floor, High Court Annexe, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, consuming alcohol and when you were found walking with a limping gait towards the lounge adjoining Patron-in-Chief Hall, the Registrar (Vigilance) noticed smell of alcohol emanating from your mouth and inspite of his request to meet Hon'ble Justices

¶101

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶102

Shri V.Gopalagowda and V.G.Sabhahit, you failed to do so and sped away from the scene.

¶103

Thereby you have committed an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966."

¶104

The petitioner submitted his reply denying the

¶105

charge that he used to come to the Court late after consuming alcohol and that he used to rise early. He also denied that he had indulged in corrupt practice to favour a set of Advocates and that he was arrogant and harassing the witnesses particularly Doctors who came to the Court to depose as witnesses by making them wait unnecessarily. He also denied of coming to the Court in the second half of the day and instructing the Bench Clerk to give dates and later signed the order sheets. He claimed that he treated all his staff with dignity and courteously. He admitted that the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar had visited Chintamani Court on 14.08.2007. He, however, contended that he was in the Court compound itself inspecting the arrangements for Independence Day celebration. He denied that he had consumed alcohol on that day and contended that he was not in the chamber when

¶106

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶107

the Principal District Judge gave a surprise visit. He also denied that his Stenographer was typing the judgments by looking into the files and claimed that all the judgments were dictated by him. In so far as charge No.X is concerned, he stated that when he tried to verify whether a caveat was filed in O.S No.338/2007 or not and informed the Sheristedar to get caveat register, he found that there was a caveat pending. Therefore, he replaced the earlier order sheet and issued notice on I.A No.1 and suit summons to the defendants returnable by 05.01.2008. Thus, he contended that he was not guilty of any misconduct.

¶108

In so far as charge No.XI is concerned, the

¶109

petitioner admitted of having raised a personal loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from State Bank of India, Chintamani Branch and contended that it was towards meeting unforeseen expenses relating to his Car. As regards charge No.XII is concerned, he claimed that the list of documents in support of the charge was not furnished to him. As regards charge No.XIII, he stated that the mobile phone (mobile No.9880119875) belonged to him and that the same was lost while he was traveling and it was not found and the other mobile number does not belong to him.

¶110

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶111

In so far as charge No.XIV is concerned, the petitioner claimed that he attended the 7^th Annual Conference of Chairmen of District Legal Services Authorities and Taluk Legal Services Committee and Member Secretaries of District Legal Services Authorities on 11.08.2007 at 10 a.m. at Bangalore. He denied of having consumed alcohol on that day. He also denied that the Registrar (Vigilance) had directed him to meet the Judges of this Court.

¶112

At the enquiry, an Attender attached to the office of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) was examined as PW.1. He turned hostile. He deposed that the petitioner used to attend the Court on time and used to retire to his chambers after completion of the work. He denied any knowledge about his statements recorded by the Registrar in his discreet enquiry that was marked as Ex.P1 though he admitted his signatures.

¶113

PW.2 was an Typist attached to the office of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chintamani during the tenure of the petitioner. He stated that on 13.11.2007, the petitioner had dictated that temporary injunction was granted in O.S. No.338/2007 and accordingly, he transcribed it. However, on

¶114

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶115

14.11.2007, the petitioner stated that there was a caveat in the suit and therefore, issued notice to the defendant and directed him to type out the order sheet. In his cross-examination, he admitted that after the order of injunction was passed in O.S. No.338/2007, the Sheristedar brought it to the notice of the Court that there was a caveat petition that was not put up and therefore, the order dated 14.11.2007 was passed. He admitted that this was due to the mistake of the Sheristedar.

¶116

PW.3 was the Sheristedar at the relevant point of time when the petitioner was working as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Chintamani. He deposed that when he visited the chamber of the petitioner, he could sense the smell of star ghutka and alcohol. He deposed that the petitioner was illtreating the staff. He deposed that he had not seen the petitioner consuming alcohol but he could sense the smell of alcohol when he visited the chamber. He deposed that the petitioner used to go to the open Court after consuming alcohol and his behaviour with the staff in the Court was strange. He stated that the petitioner used to dictate judgment to the Stenographer. However, later the Stenographer used to prepare the judgments after going through the files. He stated

¶117

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶118

that a few Lawyers used to visit the chamber of the petitioner for the purpose of Legal Literacy workshop. He admitted that the Principal District Judge of Kolar visited the chamber of the petitioner on 14.08.2007 on which day, he learnt that the petitioner had consumed alcohol. He admitted that he had no knowledge about the incident. He deposed that the petitioner was treated at Vikram Hospital, Mysore.

¶119

In his cross-examination, he deposed that he never used to go to the open Court but if he was summoned by the Judge, he used to go to the Court. He deposed that no judgments were dictated to the Stenographer in his presence as he never entered the Court while dictating the judgments. When he was questioned whether the delinquent Officer smelled of ghutka and alcohol, he deposed that when the Judge spoke, he could sense smell of alcohol. He, however, deposed that he had not seen the officer consuming ghutka and alcohol. He admitted that the Registrar (Vigilance) had recorded his statement at Bengaluru. He admitted that in his statement, he had stated that the officer used to scold the staff. He deposed that he had not mentioned in the statement that Sri Narayanappa was the main agent of the Judge in MVC cases.

¶120

24 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶121

However, he stated that he mentioned in his statement that the officer used to direct the Stenographer to examine the file and prepare the judgment but claimed that he came to know about this from the Stenographer. He deposed that a few Advocates were found in the chamber of the Officer / Petitioner but stated that the Officer told him that they were there to discuss Legal Literacy Pogramme. He deposed that the petitioner used to claim that no one can harm him and that he is not afraid of anybody. He admitted that he was transferred to Kolar and that in his application for transfer, he had not mentioned about the ill-treatment or misbehaviour by the Officer. He admitted that on 14.08.2007, there was a competition arranged by the Bar association and that the Principal District Judge had arrived unexpectedly. He claimed that he heard the members of the Bar Association discussing that the petitioner had gone to the open Court after consuming alcohol. He admitted that while verifying the medical bills of the Officer/petitioner, he learnt that the Officer was suffering from piles and liver ailments. He denied the suggestion that the Officer used to attend the open Court punctually and on time. He also denied that the Officer/petitioner was discharging his duties properly and used

¶122

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶123

to return to the chambers after the Court timings. He deposed that while he recorded his statement before the Registrar, he had stated that the Officer would award higher compensation based on what the Advocates told him.

¶124

PW.4 was a Stenographer attached to the office of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chintamani where the petitioner was working. She stated that whenever she went to the petitioner's chamber, she could sense the smell of the alcohol. She claimed that after she was transferred to Kolar, she requested the Sheristedar to send her Last Pay Certificate (LPC) for which he replied that he would send it only after she typed the ten pending judgments. She claimed that she applied leave on 09.11.2007, came to Chintamani from Kolar and typed judgments in 10 cases of which one was an MVC case and others were ex parte judgments. After she typed the judgments, she went to the house of the petitioner but he was not available. She submitted the judgments to Smt. Yogamala, who accompanied her to the house of the petitioner. She claimed that the petitioner did not dictate any judgment out of the 10 cases typed by her but she verified the files and typed the judgments on the basis of her experience. She alleged that

¶125

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶126

she rarely used to go to the open Court as she was hesitant since the petitioner used to be under the influence of alcohol. She claimed that the petitioner never dictated any judgment completely but he used to give directions as to how each judgment has to be prepared. Accordingly, she typed the judgments and later, the petitioner would dictate the operative portion. She admitted that the petitioner was suffering from illhealth and used to consume oranges frequently. She stated that she had prepared the judgments in MVC No.76/2005, Misc. No. 20/2002, Misc. No.7/2006, O.S. No.117/2006, O.S. No.145/2006, O.S. No.11/2006 and few other cases. She claimed that she had prepared the award in MVC No.53/2005 as per the direction of the petitioner and that he did not dictate the judgment. She, however, deposed that she had not observed that the petitioner conducted open Court proceedings under the influence of alcohol.

¶127

PW.5 was the First Division Assistant attached to

¶128

the office of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chintamani, between 1999 to 2008. She deposed that whenever she went to the chamber of the petitioner, she could sense smell of pan parag and ghutka and stated that she never sensed the smell

¶129

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶130

of alcohol. She deposed that PW.4 had come to Chintamani on 09.11.2007 and prepared 9 to 10 judgments and handed them over to her. She deposed that PW.4 went to the house of the petitioner. She deposed that the petitioner did not give dictation to PW.4 to prepare the judgments in 9 to 10 cases. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the petitioner never consumed alcohol or pan or ghutka in her presence. However, she could not specifically state at what time the petitioner used to come to the open Court and till what time he worked.

¶131

PW.6 was the Accounts Shirestedar at the office of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chintamani, between June 2002 to August 2007, who deposed that when he went to the chamber of the petitioner, he could sense the smell of alcohol, though he deposed that he did not see the petitioner consuming alcohol. He admitted that the Registrar (Vigilance) had recorded his statement.

¶132

PW.7 was a Driver in the District Court, Mangaluru. He deposed that he had no personal information about the petitioner. His evidence is more or less hearsay and did not help the respondents in proving the charge.

¶133

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶134

PW.8 was an Advocate practicing in Mangaluru where the petitioner was working as an Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.). He deposed that he had never seen the petitioner conducting proceedings in the open court after consuming alcohol. He admitted that the Registrar (Vigilance) had recorded his statement.

¶135

PW.9 was an Attender at the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chintamani during November 2004. He deposed that he had worked with the petitioner for one year nine months as an Attender. He stated that the petitioner used to go to the Court chambers between 9.45 to 10 a.m. and that he would go to the Court after consuming alcohol. He alleged that the staff of the petitioner used to get alcohol. He deposed that Advocates in Chintamani and Kolar would meet Sri Narayanappa - PW.3 and that PW.3 used to visit petitioner's chamber everyday and stay back for half an hour to 45 minutes. He deposed that Mr. Srinivas and Sri Manjunath Reddy had contacts with Sri Narayanappa and that Sri Narayanappa had purchased a house for Rs.9,00,000/-. He deposed that the petitioner used to go home for lunch between 2 to 2.15 p.m. and would return to the chambers by 3 or 3.15

¶136

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶137

p.m. and sign a few documents and go to the open Court. He deposed that he had not seen the petitioner consuming liquor in the chambers in the afternoon. He deposed that the petitioner never went to the Court on time and that Advocates were dissatisfied. He deposed that the petitioner had severe pain in his legs and therefore, he used to place his legs on the table and sit. He deposed that his relationship with Lawyers in the open court hall was good. He deposed that whenever Lawyers came to his chamber, the petitioner used to tell him to be in the Court. He claimed that a lady from Mangalore had visited the petitioner and that she stayed at the Inspection Bungalow for one day. He deposed that when she came to the chambers, the petitioner asked him to stay outside the chambers. He deposed that none of the staff were happy working under him. He admitted that the petitioner was not having good health and was treated by Dr. Vasu and Dr. Srinath Reddy. He deposed that PW.3 was supplying liquor to the petitioner. He deposed that PW.4 did not come to Chintamani to prepare the judgments. He admitted that he recorded his statement before the Registrar (Vigilance). He deposed that he had not seen the petitioner consuming alcohol.

¶138

30 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶139

He deposed that he came to know about a lady Advocate visiting the chamber of the petitioner only after the Registrar (Vigilance) informed him and that another person had accompanied the lady to the chamber of the petitioner.

¶140

PW.10 was an Advocate practicing in Mangalore. She deposed that the statement recorded by the Registrar (Vigilance) was not read over to her. She claimed that in her statement, it was recorded that people used to talk that the petitioner used to come to the Court drunk though she did not make any such statement and therefore, she insisted to strike out that portion of the statement and accordingly, it was struck off.

¶141

PW.11 was a First Division Assistant (FDA) at the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) between February 2005 to September 2007 and was working as a Bench Clerk with the petitioner. He deposed that the petitioner used to come to the chamber at 10 a.m. and he used to come to the Court between 11.30 to 11.45 a.m. He deposed that the petitioner used to come to the Court after consuming alcohol and that he could sense smell of alcohol. He deposed that the petitioner used to

¶142

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶143

return to the chamber by 1.30 p.m. and used to come back to the Court between 3.15 to 3.30 p.m. and return to the chamber at 4.30 or 5 p.m. He deposed that the petitioner was never punctual in attending the Court. He deposed that sometimes he used to take the applications filed by the Lawyers to the chamber of the petitioner for passing appropriate orders. He deposed that he came to know that PW.3 and PW.1 were purchasing liquor bottles and delivering them to the chamber of the petitioner. He deposed that the petitioner never lost his temper when he came to the open Court after consuming alcohol and that everyone in the Court knew about the petitioner consuming alcohol. He deposed that the petitioner used to dictate judgments in his chamber and not in the open Court. He deposed that after making entries in the 'A' diary about the judgments, the judgments used to be released after a week. He deposed that PW.4 used to prepare judgments on her own in ex parte cases. He deposed that PW.3 was close with many Advocates in Chintamani particularly Advocates practicing Motor vehicle cases. He deposed that the petitioner had immense confidence in PW.3 and that PW.3 used to visit the chamber of the petitioner very often and stay in his

¶144

32 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶145

chamber for nearly half an hour to one hour. He deposed that on 14.08.2007, when Principal District Judge, Kolar gave a surprise visit, he was asked to get the 'A' diary. On that day, there were 70 cases listed. He deposed that the petitioner had instructed him to give dates to all the cases at 11 a.m and accordingly, he had granted dates. He deposed that no evidence was recorded on that day and the petitioner did not come to the Court. He identified a statement made by him in this regard before the Principal District Judge which was marked as Ex.P3. He deposed that the petitioner used to abstain from Court twice or thrice in a month and used to instruct him to give dates. He deposed that many Lawyers used to go easily into the chamber of the petitioner. He deposed that the petitioner used to keep Oranges and Apples in his chamber to ward off the stench of alcohol. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he had never seen the petitioner consuming alcohol. He deposed that he had never seen PW.1 and PW.3 purchasing liquor bottles and supplying it to the petitioner in his chamber. Though he claimed that Advocates and clients were discussing about the petitioner consuming liquor, he did not remember the names of the Advocates and

¶146

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶147

the clients. He deposed that the petitioner told him to direct the Stenographer to prepare ex parte judgments by handing over the files. He deposed that on 14.08.2007, the Advocates had organized rangoli competition and that the Principal District Judge, Kolar had also participated in it. On the said day, the petitioner did not come and conduct the proceedings in the Court.

¶148

PW.12 was the Stenographer who served under the petitioner between August 2001 to September 2006. He deposed that the petitioner would not dictate judgments in ex parte cases but he was required to look into the documents and type the judgments. He deposed that in MVC cases, the officer would mark out the evidence adduced and determine the compensation under various heads and the quantum of compensation. He deposed that he personally perused the pleadings and typed the reasoning and compensation to be awarded and prepared the judgments. He claimed that the Officer / petitioner used to consume ghutka in his chamber. However, he claimed that he heard Advocates and Court officials discussing that the Officer would consume liquor and come to the Court. He deposed that he knew that the

¶149

34 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶150

Officer used to come to the Court after consuming alcohol and conduct proceedings. He claimed that the pending Clerk used to supply alcohol to the officer. Likewise, the petitioner's driver used to supply alcohol to the petitioner. He claimed that he used to type the judgments on his own by noting the main points explained by the Officer / petitioner. If he omitted to type any portion, the Officer would instruct him to include those portions in the judgment. He claimed that he along with the Typist had prepared the charge and statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in criminal cases and that the Officer did not dictate them. He claimed that as the Officer used to come to the Court after consuming alcohol, the public did not have a good opinion about him. He also deposed that he had recorded his statement before the Registrar (Vigilance). He claimed that he had used only one shorthand book in three months when he served under the Officer. He claimed that initially, the officer used to dictate judgments but later he was not doing it and that he used to peruse the records and prepare the judgments. He claimed that he used to prepare the judgments as he was compelled to do so but claimed that he never brought this to the notice of the Principal

¶151

35 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶152

District Judge, Kolar. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he could not tell the number of cases in which he had prepared the judgments while working under the Officer. He claimed that he had seen the Officer / petitioner consuming ghutka and identified it as star ghutka. He did not give out the names of the Advocates or the Court officials or the clients who were discussing that the Officer used to come to the Court after consuming alcohol. He deposed that he had not seen the Officer consuming alcohol and had not seen either the pending Clerk or the car driver supplying liquor bottles. He deposed that whenever he was summoned into the chambers by the Judge for dictation, he would discuss the case with him. Though he claimed that he had told some of his colleagues that he was typing the judgments without dictation, he could not recollect the names of his colleagues.

¶153

PW.13 was a First Division Assistant who worked in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chintamani, from November 2006 to September 2007. He thereafter served as a Bench Clerk from October 2007. He claimed that when he used to go to the Officer's chamber for taking signature on roznama, he could sense the smell of alcohol. He deposed that the

¶154

36 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶155

petitioner used to conduct Legal Awareness programme. He claimed that Lawyers, clients and public used to discuss that the Officer used to come to the Court after consuming alcohol. He admitted that Mr. P. Narayanappa was the pending Clerk concerning MVC cases and stated that he used to supply 'Signature' brand whisky to the Officer to his chamber. He deposed that the Officer / petitioner used to come to the open Court at 11.30 a.m or 12 noon and used to instruct him to call out 5 to 10 cases and used to record the order sheets in those 5 to 10 cases. He deposed that in other cases, dates were given and it was mentioned that dates were given on the request of the clients. He deposed that the Officer used to listen to the Bench Clerk and act accordingly and the Bench clerk used to act according to the instructions of the Officer. He deposed that the Bench Clerk had close contacts with the Advocates who were handling MVC cases and he used to collect money from them and take them into the Officer's chamber for discussion. He deposed that the petitioner never opposed the Advocates entering his chamber. He deposed that the Lawyers used to claim that the Officer was liberal in granting bail, injunction, higher compensation in MVC cases and released

¶156

37 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶157

Fixed Deposit even before its date of maturity etc. and therefore, they were not interested to lodge any complaints against him. He deposed that when the Officer was unwell, his Bench Clerk used to take him to the hospital and meet the expenses and after it was reimbursed, the Bench clerk used to collect it back. He claimed that PW.4 used to tell him that she was preparing the judgments and that the judgments were not pronounced immediately but were pronounced after two to three months. He claimed that the Attender of the Officer / petitioner used to fix the drink for the Officer and that the Attender used to provide pickles. He claimed that the Officer used to stay back in the chamber till 9 o'clock whenever his wife was out of station. He claimed that the Bench Clerk and the Officer / petitioner were consuming liquor in the chamber till 9 o' clock. He claimed that the Officer never used to dictate the deposition of the witnesses to the Typists but the Typists were recording it on their own. He deposed that the Officer / petitioner was not conducting himself well with the staff and if any Typist refused to record the evidence, he used to abuse them. He deposed that on days when MVC cases were called, the Officer used to come to the Court punctually but on other

¶158

38 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶159

days, he used to come at 12 o' clock. He deposed that every day there used to be seven or eight Lawyers in his chamber and when questioned, he claimed that they were there to discuss Legal Awareness Programme. He deposed that the officer used to come to the Court after consuming alcohol. He claimed that one Mr. B.R. Srinath, President of Chintamani Bar Association told him that with the help of the Bench clerk, he got higher compensation. He admitted that the Registrar (Vigilance) had recorded his statement.

¶160

In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had seen the Officer consuming alcohol in his chamber and that the Bench clerk used to be there with him. However, he deposed that he had not stated that fact before the Registrar (Vigilance) and claimed that he answered only the questions that were put to him by the Registrar (Vigilance). He deposed that the Bench Clerk used to show the bottle that he was carrying into the chamber of the Officer / petitioner. He deposed that he had overheard the Officer telling the Bench clerk to buy fruits and liquor but could not recollect the dates. He deposed that he had never recorded in the 'A' diary that the proceedings of the Court started late but had recorded that the proceedings began

¶161

39 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶162

at 11 o'clock. He deposed that he had not seen the Bench clerk receiving money from the Lawyers. He had deposed that the office bearers of the Association used to go to the chamber of the Officer / petitioner and the Bench Clerk used to accompany them. He deposed that he had not seen the Bench Clerk paying the medical expenses of the Officer. He deposed that he had recorded the statement before the Registrar (Vigilance) that the Stenographer used to prepare the judgments and claimed that such statement was made on the basis of the information given by the Stenographer. He claimed that he had seen the Attender fixing the drink for the Officer. He deposed that the watchman used to tell him that the Officer used to stay back in the Chamber till 9 o' clock but could not recollect the name of the Watchman. He deposed that the Typist had to record the evidence of the witnesses on her own and the Officer never used to dictate it. He deposed that the Officer used to misbehave with him.

¶163

A perusal of the evidence shows that the petitioner had indeed cultivated a habit of consuming alcohol during Court hours. There is palpable evidence to show that the petitioner was suffering from some health issues. It is not known whether

¶164

40 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶165

the petitioner used to retire to his chambers early due to his medical condition. It is also not known that due to his health issues, he was not able to concentrate on his work. Be that as it may, the fact that the petitioner was consuming alcohol during working hours is more than probable. This apart, the petitioner had delegated judicial work to a Stenographer and thereby, had indulged in a serious misconduct. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be doubted. The Disciplinary Authority was though justified in imposing a major penalty, he could not have lost sight of the fact that there is no tangible evidence on record impinging upon the integrity of the petitioner. Though casual statements are made that the petitioner used to pass judgments in favour of a few Lawyers and that heavy awards were passed to keep the Lawyers happy, there is not even a shred of evidence to indicate that the petitioner had derived any pecuniary advantage from any Lawyer or litigant. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority while imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service must have considered imposing a lesser penalty like compulsory retirement as the petitioner was not fit to continue as a Judicial officer in view of his conduct in not

¶166

41 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶167

upholding the dignity of the Court and the solemnity of the proceedings. It is trite law that a punishment of dismissal from service should be imposed in cases where an employee is accused of grave misconduct and in cases where his continuation in service would affect the morale of the other employees or when his conduct is such that he does not deserve to be continued in employment either under it or any one else. In the instant case, though the conduct of the petitioner is unacceptable and he does not deserve to be continued in service, yet his integrity is not compromised. Taking into account the fact that he had a dependent wife and two children, who would be affected by the extreme punishment of dismissal, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment recommended by the respondent No.1 - Disciplinary Authority deserves to be modified to compulsory retirement and consequently, the impugned Order also deserves to be modified.

¶168

In view of the above, this petition is allowed in part . The finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the charges against the petitioner (since deceased) are proved is upheld. However, the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority to

¶169

42 - NC: 2025:KHC:12040 WP No. 47018 of 2015

¶170

inflict major penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service is modified to Compulsory Retirement. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 dismissing the petitioner (since deceased) from service is modified to Compulsory Retirement. In view of the modification of the punishment, the terminal benefits of the deceased petitioner including family pension payable to the dependents of the deceased petitioner shall be settled within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶171

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶172

sma

¶173

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Sri S R Thulasiram v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S R Thulasiram v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.S. Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

H. N. Meena Vs the Registrar and Administrative Officer

Sri Shaheer Patel Vs the Karnataka Public Service Commission

Jagadeesh R Vs the Managing Director

Smt Nandini N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. J. Dharmappa Vs State of Karnataka