http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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: