SC upholds dismissal of Karnataka judge guilty of pronouncing operative parts of judgments sans the full text being prepared or dictated

A division Bench of the Supreme Court was ruling on a petition filed by the registrar general of the Karnataka High Court. The petition challenged an order passed by a division bench of the Karnataka High Court. In the order, the division bench had quashed an administrative order of the full court of the Karnataka High Court dismissing a judicial services officer for pronouncing the operative part of his judgments without the entire text of the judgment being prepared or dictated in the open court.

—

IN a strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday castigated an order passed by a division Bench of the Karnataka High Court quashing an administrative order of the full court of the same High Court.

A division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal described the order as "a veiled attack on the full court of the high court".

It upheld the decision of the full court dismissing civil judge (junior division), M. Narasimha Prasad, who used to pronounce the operative part of his judgments without the entire text of the judgment being prepared or dictated in the open court.

The division Bench was ruling on a petition filed by the registrar general of the Karnataka High Court, challenging the decision of their own high court which set aside the decision of the full court dismissing Prasad from judicial services.

The Bench rejected Prasad's argument that he was not able to give the full text of judgments immediately due to an inefficient stenographer.

Facts

Prasad was appointed as civil judge (junior division) on January 31, 1995. He was placed under suspension on January 25, 2005, followed by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him for a number of allegations. Some of them included the pronouncement of the operative portion of the judgment in open court without the whole text of the judgment being ready.

As per the enquiry report, some charges stood proved while other charges were not proven. The full court of the high court, on October 4, 2008, decided to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon Prasad. Based on the resolution of the full court, an order of dismissal from service was passed by the governor of Karnataka on March 19, 2009.

A single judge of the high court dismissed multiple petitions filed by Prasad against the dismissal order. He filed an intra-court appeal before the division Bench of the high court which, by a very strange order, as the Supreme Court put it, not only set aside the order of penalty and the findings of the enquiry officer, but also directed that no further inquiry could be held against Prasad.

The registrar general of the Karnataka High Court challenged this order of the division Bench before the Supreme Court.

Ruling

Disapproving the high court order, the judgment, authored by Justice Ramasubramanian, termed the charges against Prasad regarding the pronouncement of the operative part of judgments without giving reasons for the same, a serious charge.

As per the judgment, "A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated. All that the respondent has done in the departmental enquiry is just to pass on the responsibility to the inefficient and allegedly novice stenographer. We do not know how the findings with regard to such serious charges have been completely whitewashed by the high court in the impugned judgment."

The Supreme Court Bench refused to accept Prasad's argument that he was not able to provide the full text of his judgments immediately due to a lack of experience and inefficiency on the part of his stenographer. It took strong exception to the high court accepting this "panchatantra story" by Prasad.

"Unfortunately, the high court not only accepted this panchatantra story, but also went to the extent of blaming the administration for not examining the stenographer as a witness. Such an approach is wholly unsustainable. If it was the case of the respondent that the entire blame lay upon the stenographer, it was for him to have summoned the stenographer as a witness. The high court unfortunately reversed the burden of proof," the Bench noted.

It observed that while considering a challenge to an order of penalty imposed upon a judicial officer pursuant to disciplinary proceedings followed by a resolution of the full court of the high court, the court is obliged only to go by the following established parameters:

(i)     Whether the charges stood proved;

(ii)   Whether the findings of the inquiry officer were reasonable and probable, and not perverse;

(iii) Whether the rules of procedure and the principles of natural justice had been followed; and

(iv) Whether the penalty was completely disproportionate, especially in light of the gravity of the misconduct, the officer's past record of service and any other extenuating circumstances.

The Bench said that the high court did not test the correctness of the order of penalty on these parameters.

"Instead, the high court has recorded a finding in … the impugned order, as though the learned judges had first-hand information about the problems that the judicial officers faced at the lower level. The opinion of the high court in … the impugned order that the acts of omission and commission attributed to the respondent do not constitute grave misconduct, is very, very curious. Adding fuel to fire, the High Court has recorded in … the impugned order that 'dismissing him from service itself is very atrocious'. Such a finding is nothing but a veiled attack on the full court of the high court. After holding so, the high court has gone to the extent of certifying the respondent as an innocent and honest officer. We do not know wherefrom the high court came to such a conclusion," the Bench underscored in a scathing comment on the high court's judgment.

The Bench went on to quash the order of the division Bench of the high court comprising Justices L. Narayana Swamy and R. Devdas.

Click here to view the Supreme Court's full judgment in The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Anr. versus Sri M. Narasimha Prasad.