K. Bhaktavatsala, J.
1. The appellant, who is a Civil Judge of Senior Division Cadre, unsuccessful in W.P. No. 35051 of 1996, is before us challenging the order of dismissal of writ petition in No. 35051 of 1996 by order dated 7-4-1999 (Kazi Mohd. Muzeebulla v. The High Court of Karnataka and Anr., 1999(3) Kar. L.J. 550 : ILR 1999 Kar. 2413) on the file of learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. The respondents are represented by Sri G. Nagarajulu Naidu, Additional Government Advocate.
3. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellant is hereinafter referred to as the 'delinquent'.
4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ appeal may be stated as under.-
The respondent 1 on the administrative side had initiated domestic enquiry proceedings against the delinquent by issuing a charge memo dated 18-3-1992. The charges levelled against the delinquent were that when he was a Civil Judge at Gadag during the year 1991, with ulterior motive of conferring undue benefit on the claimants in L.A.C. Nos. 13 of 1989 and 159 of 1990, had passed awards fixing the market value of agricultural lands at an exorbitant amount dishonestly by abuse of judicial power and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. The delinquent filed his written statement dated 3-11-1995 denying the charges levelled against him. Since the explanation offered by the delinquent was unsatisfactory, the respondent 1 appointed Sri D. Basavaraju, the then District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad District as Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges of misconduct. Thereafter, enquiry was held in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and submitted his report together with the records of the enquiry proceedings and other documents to the respondent 1 on the administrative side. The Enquiry Officer was of the view that the charges were fully established and proved.
The respondent 1, on receipt, of the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer, dated 1-2-1993, issued a second show-cause notice dated 28-2-1993 along with the copy of the report to the delinquent to show cause as to why the report of the Inquiring Authority should not be accepted. The delinquent replied to the show-cause notice and contended that the report is not based on oral and documentary evidence. It is also contended that awarding compensation in two land acquisition cases was bona fide exercise of judicial powers and the same cannot be the subject-matter of departmental enquiry proceedings. The respondent 1 considered the explanation of the delinquent and held it as unsatisfactory and accepted the findings of the Inquiring Authority and decided to impose a majorpenalty. Therefore, the respondent 1 issued one more notice to the delinquent to show cause why penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed. The delinquent submitted his reply. The respondent 1 considered the reply and resolved to impose a penalty of dismissal from service, and recommended to the Governor accordingly. Hence, on the basis of the report of the Inquiring Authority and recommendation by the respondent 1, the Governor passed an order dismissing the delinquent from judicial service, in accordance with law, on the ground that the delinquent committed misconduct of unbecoming behaviour, dereliction of duty, judicial dishonesty and integrity to uphold judicial prestige. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the delinquent invoked the writ jurisdiction in W.P. No. 35051 of 1996.
The learned Single Judge after hearing arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties and perusing the material on record, came to the conclusion that there was no violation of principles of natural justice and he refused to interfere with the impugned order at Annexure-A, consequently dismissed the writ petition. This is impugned in this appeal.
5. Heard arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Sri H.S. Jois for the appellant and Sri G. Nagarajulu Naidu, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
6. The bone of contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/delinquent is that awarding higher compensation in land acquisition cases could not have been made as a ground for imposing extreme penalty of dismissal from service, when the delinquent himself requested for voluntary retirement from service, the learned Single Judge has not made reference to any of the contentions raised by the delinquent in the reply to the show-cause notice. It was also contended that the order of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sustained for non-application of mind to the defence of the delinquent and the host of other circumstances including the evidence on record, and there was violation of principles of natural justice as the copy of resolution of the Administrative Committee, dated 9-1-1996 had not been made available to the delinquent.
7. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Single Judge formulated the following points for consideration.-
(i) Whether the initiation of the domestic enquiry proceedings by the appointing/disciplinary authority is legal and justified?
(ii) Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer is based on evidence available on record? Or is it perverse?
(iii) Whether the non-supply of the decision taken on the objections filed to the second show-cause notice would vitiate the enquiry proceedings and whether the second show-cause notice should have been issued by the Disciplinary Authority alone?
(iv) Whether the impugned order is bad and invalid since it does not contain reasons?
(v) What order?
8. The learned Single Judge referred to the material points formulated for consideration and answered all the points against the delinquent and ultimately dismissed the writ petition.
9. It is relevant to state the details of the charges levelled against the delinquent. The charge No. 1 is relating to the delinquent's misconduct that while dealing with land acquisition case in No. 13 of 1989 relating to acquisition of land bearing Sy. No. 11/2 situated at Lakshmeshwar, native place of the delinquent, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square foot, and thus awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 13,06,800/- per acre and in all amounting to Rs. 45,73,800/- towards acquisition of 3 acres 20 guntas besides statutory benefits, though the land sought to be acquired was agreed to be sold by the claimant himself on 4-10-1985 prior to preliminary notification dated 15-1-1987, for a sum of Rs. 48,500/- to Gadag Municipality by receiving an advance of Rs. 5,000/-, and apart from that the claimant himself had estimated the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre and claimed compensation only at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Hence, as per charge No. 1, the delinquent was charged that he was guilty of gross abuse of judicial power and the conduct of the delinquent most unbecoming of a judicial officer.
10. The second charge levelled against the delinquent was like that of charge No. 1, that while dealing with L.A.C. No. 159 of 1990 relating to acquisition of 4 acres 20 guntas of land in the land bearing Sy. No. 2, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12 per square foot. In other words, a sum of Rs. 16,91,520/- was awarded besides granting statutory benefits, though the claimant estimated the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. Therefore, the delinquent was charged guilty of gross abuse of judicial power and the conduct of the delinquent most unbecoming of a judicial officer.
11. According to the delinquent, the charges levelled against him were baseless, as he decided the cases strictly in accordance with law, good conscience and without any fear or favour. It is also contended that the State of Karnataka, being an aggrieved party, had already preferred appeals against the judgment and awards passed in the said cases, and therefore absolutely no basis whatsoever to issue articles of charges to the delinquent, and thus the delinquent denied the charges levelled against him as baseless.
12. Admittedly, the delinquent hails from Sindhanur. The subject-matter of the land in L.A.C. No. 13 of 1989 is also from Sindhanur, a small village and taluk headquarters. According to the petitioner, he left Sindhanur and joined service. The delinquent himself has submitted before the Inquiring Authority that he owns immovable properties, non-residential buildings, godowns, a hotel and flats at Sindhanur, which he inherited from his parents. The Inquiring Authority referred to the contentions and the evidence adduced on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, and reached the conclusion that the delinquent abused the judicial process and his conduct was most unbecoming of a judicial officer. The Inquiring Authority has followed the principles of natural justice whileconducting enquiry against the delinquent. Thereafter, show-cause notice dated 28-2-1993 was sent along with the copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority dated 1-2-1993. The Disciplinary Authority considered the reply to the show-cause notice and since felt it not satisfactory, proposed to impose major penalty and even in that regard show-cause notice was issued to the delinquent and after considering the reply of the delinquent, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty dismissing the delinquent from service.
13. In view of the admitted facts, evidence and material on record, there was no good ground to take a lenient view and impose any other penalty than the one imposed on the delinquent.
14. Admittedly, judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which decision is made. In other words, power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion, which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court (See B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors.). In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority has followed the principles of natural justice meticulously and afforded all opportunities, and reached the conclusion that it was a fit case to impose major penalty of dismissal from service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Anr., has cautioned the Courts from interfering with the finding of facts unless the finding of fact is based on no evidence or is so perverse that it requires to be interfered with. Absolutely, there is no flaw or error either in the conduct of proceedings initiated and conclusion reached against the delinquent. In short, there is no merit in the appeal and therefore the appeal is liable to be rejected.
15. Hence, we pass the following order.-
The writ appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.