Supreme Court upholds dismissal of Civil judge who used to pronounce outcome of case without preparing reasoned judgment and blame steno

The Supreme Court of India on Monday upheld the administrative decision of the full court of Karnataka High Court to dismiss a civil judge who used to pronounce operative part/ outcome of judgment without preparing the entire text of the judgment [The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Anr. vs M Narasimha Prasad].A bench of justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court that had quashed the dismissal.The top court noted that the judge in question had passed the blame to his stenographer, claiming that the steno was inefficient. Such a defence, the Court said, was unacceptable."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 white-washed by the High Court in the impugned judgment," the apex court said.The bench further noted that some of the charges revolved around judicial pronouncements and decision-making process and thus could not form the foundation of departmental proceedings. However, the Court said that the charges of gross negligence and callousness in not preparing judgments but providing a fait accompli was completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer."The defence taken by the respondent that the lack of experience and the inefficiency on the part of the stenographer has to be blamed, for the whole text of the judgment not getting ready even after several days of pronouncement of the result in open court, was entirely unacceptable," the Court ruled. But 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, the Court observed. "Such an approach is wholly unsustainable," the Supreme Court underlined..The Court was hearing an appeal by the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court against an order of a division bench of the High Court setting aside the decision to dismiss the civil judge from service..The respondent-judge was placed under suspension in 2005 followed by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings with four charge memos. As per enquiry reports, some of the charges were proved..Post issuance of second show cause notices, a full bench of the High Court resolved to impose a penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent. Based on the resolution, the Governor of Karnataka dismissed the respondent from service in 2009..The respondent challenged the findings of the enquiry officer and also his dismissal through separate petitions before the High Court. The petitions were dismissed by a single-judge but appeals against the same were allowed by a division bench in November 2011..The Registrar General of the High Court challenged this order before the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court noted that the appeals were allowed by a strange order that not only set aside the order of penalty and findings of the enquiry officer, but also directed that no further inquiry can be held against the respondent..Upon examining the charges against the respondent, the Court determined that two of the charges in particular were very serious, and that the replies by the respondent to the charges were wishy-washy.The respondent was alleged to have pronounced the operative portion of the judgment in open court without the judgment being ready. Additionally, he was also alleged to have wrongfully bought properties for sale in public auction in criminal cases..The Court underlined that a judicial officer cannot pronounce the operative part of his judgment without preparing the full text of the judgment. Further, noting that the respondent had only passed on the responsibility to an alleged novice stenographer, the Court questioned how the findings were completely white-washed by the High Court..The Court observed that the High Court did not examine the penalty order correctly and instead made a finding that they had first-hand information about the problems faced by judicial officers. It said that the High Court's opinion that the respondent's actions did not constitute grave misconduct was very-very curious and its statement that dismissing him from service was "very atrocious" and amounted to an attack on the full court of the High Court. .It observed that the High Court also certified the respondent as an innocent and honest officer, but it was unclear how it drew this conclusion. .Hence, it allowed the appeal by the registrar and set aside the order of the division bench of the High Court thereby confirming the dismissal of the respondent. .[Read Judgment]