JUDGMENT
N.K. Jain, C.J.
1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24-5-2000 in G.V. Ronad v State of Karnataka and Anr., 2000(6) Kar. L.J. 130, ILR2000 Kar. 2668, dismissing the writ petition.
2. The necessary facts are that the appellant was selected as a Munsiff during the year 1987 and was working as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kudligi, during the period 25-2-1991 to 15-9-1992. On some complaint, the appellant, on the basis of the preliminary report dated 29-10-1992 of the Registrar (Vigilance), was suspended on 23-4-1993. The articles of charges was issued to the appellant, framing as many as 8 charges. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellary and the appellant was found guilty of Charge Nos. 3 and 5, vide enquiry report dated 16-2-1995. A show-cause notice was issued on 22-4-1995 along with a copy of the enquiry report, which was replied by the appellant by a representation dated 15-5-1995 stating that the Inquiry Authority has erred in not coming to the correct conclusions in view of the contradictions, discrepancies and omissions and prayed that inquiry against him be dropped taking into consideration the aged parents, wife and son who are dependent on him. As the reply was not satisfactory, another show-cause notice of proposed penalty was issued to the appellant. The appellant filed one more representation dated 4-9-1995 praying that his explanation be given a humanitarian consideration and the inquiry against him may kindly be dropped. Ultimately, the appellant was dismissed from service vide Order No. LAW 32 LAC 96, dated 25-7-1996 (Annexure-A). The same was challenged in the writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge on considering the material fact on record and after referring to various cases cited, by a detailed order dismissed the writ petition. The same has been challenged. The matter has come up before us.
4. The main contention of Sri K Subba Rao, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the contentions raised in the writ petition were not considered by the learned Single Judge in right perspective and despite the observation of the Enquiry Officer that there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 11 the same was ignored. Hence the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not correct. He submits that the disciplinary authority did not consider the explanation offered by the appellant in right perspective and the entire proceedings is liable to be vitiated as he was not supplied with the copy of the recommendations recommending termination of his service. He relied on the decisions in State of Gujarat v R. G. Teredesai and Anr., and Yoginath D. Bagde v State of Maharashtra, .
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record and gone through the case-laws cited.
6. No doubt, merely on a complaint by someone or on an anonymous complaint, a Judicial Officer should not be dismissed and the complaint has to be ignored. So also a good and honest officer should be protected from the vague and unscrupulous complaints of the litigants and lawyers. It is also to be seen that it is very difficult to prove the case of dishonesty. But once on a complaint, after giving opportunity and on enquiry, if a charge is proved, the same cannot be disbelieved in the writ jurisdiction merely assuming that there is discrepancy of evidence. Undoubtedly, this Court can invoke Article 226 if mandatory procedure prescribed has not been followed in enquiry, or there is violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court can also interfere if the conclusion is based on no evidence or perverse. The finding can also be challenged if it is arbitrary, capricious and no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion. At the same time, this Court will not go into the adequacy or reliability of the evidence and cannot take a different view as it is not a Court of appeal. This Court, to maintain the purity of Judicial system, so also to prove worthy of the confidence reposed by the public in administration of justice, if a charge is proved, will not interfere and will take action accordingly. However, each case depends upon facts of its own.
7. It will be appropriate to refer to Charge Nos. 3 and 5, which have been proved. The extract of said charges is as follows:
“Charge No. 3.–That in C.C. No. 297 of 1987, on your file, in which one Sri R. Mallikarjuna Gowda of Valuvatti was one of the accused, you demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- to decide the case in his favour, from the said Sri R. Mallikarjuna Gowda, that after bargaining, you agreed to receive Rs. 3,000/- from the accused, that you did receive Rs. 3,000/- from the said Sri Mallikarjuna Gowda as settled, and that after receipt of the said amount of Rs. 3,000/- you thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and your conduct is unbecoming of a judicial officer. . . .
Charge No. 5.–That in spite of the fact that Sri Panchksharaiah and Sri Sadaksharaiah are parties to the proceedings before you viz., O.S. No. 164 of 1991, you maintained close contact with them, moved about with them and stayed in their house, that you thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. . . .”.
8. On Charge No. 3, the Enquiry Officer considered the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 as also P.W. 5 who corroborated the statement of P.Ws. 3 and 4 and also the tape-recorded conversation, which revealed that the appellant received bribe of Rs. 3,000/- and also Rs. 2,000/- for the second time. The Enquiry Officer also considered the evidence of P.W. 11 who had stated DGO demanded Rs. 5,000/- for disposal of the case and he agreed to give Rs. 3,000/- and paid Rs. 2,000/- in his chamber and paid remaining amount of Rs. 1,000/- at the residence of DGO. The Enquiry Officer held that the conduct of the DGO is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer within the meaning of Rule 3(l)(iii) of the said Rules and Charge No. 3 was proved.
9. On Charge No. 5, the Enquiry Officer considered the evidence led by P.Ws. 12, 13 and 14 and the material documents placed on record. The Enquiry Officer observed that when the case was pending before the DGO, it was not befitting for him to move with the concerned litigants and also go to their house. This conduct of the DGO will clearly create apprehension in the mind of the parties that they will not get justice from him. The Enquiry Officer held that the conduct of the DGO is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer within the meaning of Rule 3(l)(iii) of the said Rules and Charge No. 5 was proved.
10. The learned Single Judge on considering the arguments and the materials placed on record observed that “I am of the view that in the case on hand rather unfortunately the appellant by his conduct has failed to maintain the expected degree of judicial discipline. Such lapse on the part of a Judicial Officer cannot be tolerated and in my opinion it cannot be said that any injustice is done to the appellant on account of the present order”.
11. The argument that there is no independent witness and generally the person whose work has been done cannot make a complaint is not acceptable. That apart, there is no bar or presumption that a person who got his work done by giving some bribe cannot complain/agitate. Otherwise also, it cannot be lost sight of, that if a person has got his acquittal in normal course, there would be no occasion for him to allege that he has paid bribe. In other words, if a person has been honorably acquitted by an honest Judge on merits, such person would not complain against the Judge accusing him of taking bribe and give evidence in an enquiry. In the instant case, charge has been proved and as stated, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that no independent witness was there to prove the charge of bribe is not acceptable. More so, the same cannot be gone into, at this stage, as this Court is not a Court of appeal.
12. The other argument is that while recommending his dismissal to the State, the recommendations were not made known to the delinquent and reliance was placed on the decision of State of Gujarat’s case, supra, wherein their Lordships observed:
“If the Enquiry Officer has also made recommendation in the matter of punishment that is likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority even with regard to the penalty or punishment to be imposed on such officer. The requirement of a reasonable opportunity, therefore, would not be satisfied unless the entire report of the Enquiry Officer including his view in the matter of punishment are disclosed to the delinquent servant”.
The same is not applicable in the facts of this case and the argument is not acceptable, as in that case the Enquiry Officer himself made the recommendations. In the instant case, as the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation offered to the first show-cause notice, and on agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, issued another show-cause notice of proposed penalty to the appellant, wherein he was clearly called upon to explain as to why major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed. The appellant was fully aware of the proposed penalty. The only reply of the appellant to that show-cause notice was to consider his case on humanitarian ground. The same was not accepted and recommendation was made to the Government for dismissal. Under the circumstances, the appellant cannot take advantage of the case cited above as in that case, it has also been observed that the Enquiry Officer is under no obligation or duty to make any recommendations in the matter of punishment to be imposed, as he has to give finding and conclusion on various charges. But, if the Enquiry Officer also makes recommendation in the matter of punishment, the same has to be supplied. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any provision under which the recommendation made by the High Court to the Government has to be furnished to the appellant, nor he has been able to show what prejudice has been caused.
13. So far as the legal point is concerned, it is not disputed that the control over the subordinate Courts vests with the High Court and the decision in Yoginath D. Bagde’s case, supra, is also not helpful in the facts of the given case.
14. Admittedly, the appellant had full knowledge of his dismissal as he had received second show-cause notice of the disciplinary authority to state as to why a major penalty of dismissal from service should not be
imposed. In the fact situation, the appellant cannot agitate that the recommendation of dismissal made by the High Court to the Government for approval of the Governor, who is the Competent Authority to accept the same, is vitiated for want of non-furnishing of a copy of the same and opportunity. This argument is not tenable and the same is rejected as devoid of any force.
15. At last, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved charge. The same is also not acceptable as it has never been agitated at any point of time. That apart, it is well-settled that while exercising power of judicial review, the Court should not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment made by the Competent Authority. In the facts of the given case, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and the appellant is not entitled for any relief.
16. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has not been able to prove that the decision is arbitrary or capricious nor any prejudice has been shown. The learned Single Judge on consideration and taking into account the decisions of the Supreme Court, by an elaborate order did not interfere with the dismissal order passed by the Government vide Order No. LAW 32 LAC 96, Bangalore, dated 25-7-1996 and in our view the same needs no interference.
17. No other point was argued.
18. On overall consideration in the facts and circumstances of the given case and as discussed above we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge so as to call for interference.
The writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.