V.R. Katarki vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 22 March, 1990

           PETITIONER:
V.R. KATARKI

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/03/1990

BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:
 1991 AIR 1241		  1990 SCR  Supl. (3)	1
 1991 SCC  Supl.  (1) 267 1991 SCALE  (1)497


ACT:
    Service    Law:   Karnataka	  Judicial    Service--Civil
Judge--Dismissal on ground of irregularities in discharge of
official      duties--Validity	   of--	    Quantum	  of
punishment--Whether	  proportionate--Confidence	  of
parties--Foundation  of	 Judicial system--Hence, not  to  be
affected.



HEADNOTE:
    The appellant, a Civil Judge, was dismissed by the	High
Court on the ground that he had committed certain irregular-
ities in the adjudication of references under Section 18  of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by (i) writing letters to the
Land  Acquisition  Officer, for enforcing  the	Award,	even
though	under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Code,  1908,
decrees	 against the State were not available for  execution
before 90 days, (ii) fixing valuation higher than the legit-
imate  one for the lands, and (iii) using  order-sheets	 got
printed by the Advocate for the parties. He was also alleged
to have purchased a pump-set costing Rs.1,000 without  prior
permission  from the appropriate authorities. His  challenge
to  the	 dismissal  was rejected by the High  Court  on	 the
judicial side. Hence, the appeal.
    Dismissing	the  appeal, but modifying  the	 quantum  of
punishment, this Court,
    HELD:  1.1 It is of paramount importance  that  judicial
officers  must act above board and keep the channel of	jus-
tice clean. Confidence of the litigating parties in Judicial
system	is  the very foundation of the	system	and  nothing
should be done which would affect that. [5C]
    1.2 Fixation of valuation is a judicial act. Even if the
assessment of valuation is modified or affirmed in appeal as
a part of the judicial process, the conduct of the  judicial
officer drawable from an overall picture of the matter would
yet be available to be looked into. In appropriate cases  it
may be open to draw inferences even from judicial acts. [3F]
    1.3 On a consideration of the materials on record, there
iS some scope for accepting the appellant's stand that there
was some mistake in
2
fixing	the valuation but no ill motive. He  is,  therefore,
entitled  to  benefit of doubt. However, it cannot  be	said
that he had acted innocently in writing letters for  enforc-
ing  of the awards. Similarly, he had acted indiscreetly  in
allowing the order-sheets got printed by a particular  Advo-
cate  to be used. Since the appellant possessed 43 acres  of
agricultural  lands,  no serious view need be taken  of	 the
purchase of pump-set without prior permission. [3G-H, 4C, E,
F-G]
    1.4 Ordinarily, justification of the quantum of  punish-
ment  imposed in a disciplinary action is not for the  court
to decide and there have been occasions when this Court	 has
taken interference by the High Courts on quantum of  punish-
ment  as an act in excess of jurisdiction. But	keeping	 the
residue of the charges in view, the dismissal of the  appel-
lant  from  service  was out of	 proportion  and  compulsory
retirement would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly,	 the
appellant  shall be taken to have been compulsorily  retired
from  service from the date his dismissal became  operative.
[4H, 5A-B]



JUDGMENT: