Whereas setting apart a choice of the Division Bench of the Excessive Court docket, the Supreme Court docket upheld the dismissal of the Civil Choose stating that it’s the responsibility of the choose to dictate or put together all the judgement and merely announcing the outcome is just not sufficient.
The respondent on this case was a Civil Choose of batch 1995. On sure allegations of some gross misconduct the respondent was suspended from his service in 2005 and enquiries to analyze the allegations began.
4 separate cost memos had been made and for every memo a separate enquiry report was filed.
When the allegations had been proved, a Full Court docket of the Excessive Court docket of Karnataka following a second present trigger discover, ordered the dismissal of the respondent from his service as a penalty for default.
The respondent challenged the orders of the enquiry officers and his dismissal vide 4 separate writ petitions within the Excessive Court docket which had been dismissed.
Aggrieved by the dismissal the respondent filed intra-court appeals which had been allowed by the Division Bench of the Excessive Court docket, which not solely put aside the dismissal order but in addition discarded the enquiry stories and on prime of it additionally held that no additional proceedings shall be taken relating to the dismissal of the respondent.
Therefore, the Registrar Common has filed an SLP earlier than the Supreme Court docket in opposition to the abrupt setting apart of the penalty of dismissal by the Division Bench of the Excessive Court docket.
Perusal of info by the Supreme Court docket
The Supreme Court docket examined all of the 4 cost memos, the reasoning given by the respondent for every cost framed in opposition to him and the proof of proof given by the enquiry officer in his report.
The Supreme Court docket upon analyzing the cost memos discovered that a few of the orders handed by the civil choose had been judicial orders and as per the conference the court docket determined to disregard these choices.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court docket discovered that there have been some critical costs and offences, nonetheless the Civil Choose didn’t put together or dictate all the judgment to the stenographer and mere pronounced the concluding portion within the open court docket. The Court docket discovered this motion to be a gross misconduct on the a part of the Choose. The Supreme Court docket additionally held that blaming the Stenographer who was additionally a novice at the moment is not going to be sufficient to flee the fees.
- Full Court docket of the Excessive Court docket
Relating to the challenges that had been raised by the respondent in opposition to the penalty of dismissal ordered by the Full Court docket of the Excessive Court docket, the Apex Court docket held that on the stage of SLP, it could solely take a look at the reasonableness of order of the Excessive Court docket’s Full Bench and that the inquiry officer carried out his responsibility correctly and never perversely.
Additionally Learn: Supreme Court docket warns Defence Ministry of ‘contempt’
- Opinion by the Division Bench
The Supreme Court docket was amused by the opinion of the Division Bench whereby it has attributed that the acts of the respondent didn’t represent grave misconduct; the dismissal from is harmless and sincere and that no additional proceedings shall be held. Upon this opinion the Apex Court docket has noticed that it provides ‘gas to the hearth’ and is a veiled assault on the Full Court docket of the Excessive Court docket.
The respondent had alleged that when a second present trigger discover was issued it already included order of dismissal; nonetheless, the proceedings earlier than the Full Court docket weren’t concluded. The Supreme Court docket discovered that the second present trigger discover didn’t include something associated to dismissal of service and the dismal order was made months after the discover was issued.
Verdict of the Supreme Court docket
The Supreme Court docket bench presided by Justice V. Ramasubramaniam and Justice Pankaj Mithal, whereas expressing concern in opposition to the impugned order of the Division Bench whereby whereas setting apart the penalty it had ordered to not have interaction any additional inquiry in opposition to the delinquent, put aside the Division Bench Order, allowed the appeals and upheld dismissal from service of the respondent whereas imposing prices.
Case Title: The Registrar Common, Excessive Court docket of Karnataka & Anr. v. Sri M. Narasimha Prasad (2023 SC)