( 1 ) PETITIONER a judicial Officer is before me challenging the order dtd 8-1-2002 Annexure-G in this case. ( 2 ) BEFORE touching upon the facts of this case, let me notice as to how the Courts have viewed the conduct of a Judge. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar Vs. Shashikant S Patil ( 2000 (1) SCC 416 ) has ruled as under; it is the constitutional duty of every High Court, on the administrative side, to keep guard over the subordinate judiciary functioning within its domain. While it is imperative for the High Court to protect honest. judicial, officers against all ill conceived or motivated complaints, the High Court. cannot afford to by pass any dishonest performance of a Member of the subordinate judiciary. Dishonesty is the stark antithesis of judicial probity. Any instance of a High Court condoning or compromising with a dishonest deed of one of its officers would only be contributing to erosion of the judicial foundation. Every hour we must remind ourselves that the judiciary floats only over the confidence of the people in its probity. Such confidence is the foundation on which the pillars of the judiciary are built. 2. Petitioner was working as Munsiff and JMFC Balki. He received a charge memo from the High Court of Karnataka charging him for certain incident amounting to misconduct on his part. Petitioner denied the charges. The disciplinary authority appointed District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, as an enquiry officer dtd 25-9-1999. Petitioner was kept under suspension in terms of an order dtd 7-9-90. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. Thereafter order dtd 25-9-1992 was issued to the petitioner. The same was successfully challenged by the petitioner in WP. NO. 24458/1993. The appeal filed by the State stood dismissed by an order dtd 23-9-1999. Consequent upon the orders of this Court, petitioner was reinstated and was posted to Hiriyur. Thereafter petitioner was again kept under suspension pending enquiry. The matter was referred to District Judge, Chitradurga for conducting a. further enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report and in the report he noticed that all charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved. Report was sent to the petitioner and his reply was obtained. Thereafter, an order dtd 23-1-2002 has been passed. The matter was referred to District Judge, Chitradurga for conducting a. further enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report and in the report he noticed that all charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved. Report was sent to the petitioner and his reply was obtained. Thereafter, an order dtd 23-1-2002 has been passed. In the said order, petitioner was retired compulsorily as specified in Rule 8 (vii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. This order is challenged by the petitioner. ( 3 ) NOTICE was issued to the respondents and respondents have filed a very detailed counter statement. They justify their action. They refer to various material facts to contend that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct leveled against him and the enquiry held by the respondent is proper and legal. They say that this petition 1s to be dismissed. ( 4 ) MATTER was heard at great length. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the entire proceedings to contend that entire inferences are contrary to the evidence on record. Learned counsel says that the enquiry findings are perverse in the case on hand. His further complaint is that Sri Ananthamurthy, Special Officer, was not examined in the case on hand. He further says that the appointment of the Presiding Officer is in violation of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules. ( 5 ) IN so far as merits are concerned, learned counsel says that the charges are not proved in the case on hand. He says that respondent has taken 11 years for disposal and that therefore he is put to hardship and difficulties. ( 6 ) PER contra, learned Government Pleader would say that after remand, no evidence was led by the petitioner. He would further say that several witnesses have been examined and non examination of Mr. Anantha Murthy, is not fatal to the case on hand. He explains the delay by saying that out of 11 years, 7 years were spent in court. Finally he says that matter requires no consideration in the light of the status of the petitioner as judicial officer and the nature of the misconduct involved in the case on hand. He wants the petition to be dismissed. ( 7 ) BOTH the learned counsel have referred to various judgments. Finally he says that matter requires no consideration in the light of the status of the petitioner as judicial officer and the nature of the misconduct involved in the case on hand. He wants the petition to be dismissed. ( 7 ) BOTH the learned counsel have referred to various judgments. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY Annexure-A is articles of charge issued to the petitioner. A reading of articles of charge issued to the petitioner would show that it contains a statement of imputation of respondents in respect of various charges. It is a lengthy charge. It also provides for list of witness and list of documents. Opportunities have been given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry, as I see from the records made available to me. No specific denial of opportunity is shown to me by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the entire file would show that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities by the respondent. I am satisfied that rules of natural justice is followed in the case on hand. It is also seen that on an earlier occasion, this court issued a direction to continue the enquiry proceedings from the stage of defence witness of the petitioner. This is an additional factor that requires to be taken note of by this Court. After remand, no evidence is led by the petitioner. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner repeatedly argued before me that inference is wrong and that there is no direct evidence available on record. Law is fairly well settled that this Court is not sitting in appeal over the evidence recorded by the domestic tribunal. Law is also well settled that if there is some evidence and if that evidence is accepted by the tribunal, this court cannot set aside the same as perverse. A finding based on no evidence is different from a finding based on some evidence. In the case on hand, parties are examined. Learned Sessions Judge bas considered the evidence in the bulky report submitted by him. The learned Sessions Judge has taken pains to refer to the evidence of each one of the charges to give a finding against the petitioner. I do not find any perversity in the report given by the enquiry officer. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the argument of perverse finding as placed by the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge has taken pains to refer to the evidence of each one of the charges to give a finding against the petitioner. I do not find any perversity in the report given by the enquiry officer. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the argument of perverse finding as placed by the petitioner. In this connection, I must notice a judgment of this Court in the case of WP No. 28166/1996 in the case of G V Ronald Vs. State of Karnataka, wherein this court in some what similar circumstances, has rejected a similar contention. The said matter was taken in appeal and a Division Bench of this Court in ILR 2002 KAR 1514 has ruled as under; if once charge is proved, the same cannot be disbelieved in writ jurisdiction merely assuming that there is discrepancy in evidence. This Court has further ruled that; 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. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel relies on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police, ( 1999 (1)SLR 283 ) with regard to writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that the findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be characterised as perverse if it is show that such a findings not supported by any evidence on record or it is not based on any evidence on record or no reasonable person could come to such findings on the basis of that evidence. In the case on hand, I have already ruled that there is no perversity and that therefore, the judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further argued that non-examination of Sri Anantha Murthy affects the case on hand. This argument cannot be accepted. In the case on hand, I have already ruled that there is no perversity and that therefore, the judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further argued that non-examination of Sri Anantha Murthy affects the case on hand. This argument cannot be accepted. It is not for the delinquent party to decide as to who is to be examined and who is not to be examined by the respondent. Petitioner cannot have a right to demand examination of a witness. Non-examination of Mr. Anantha Murthy does not affect the proceedings in any way. Even otherwise, it is seen that this is the second round of litigation. On an earlier occasion, this court only directed the respondents to continue the enquiry proceedings from the stage of defence evidence of the petitioner. In the earlier litigation, no such argument was raised with regard to non examination of Mr. Anantha Murthy. In the given circumstances and in the light of the earlier judgment of this Court, it is not possible for this court to accept the contention that the enquiry suffers only on account of non examination of Mr. Anantha Murthy. This argument is rejected. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel also argued that the charge No. 1 cannot be termed as misconduct. It is seen from charge No. 1 that the petitioner was working at Munsiff and JMFC. It Thirthahalli during the year 1988 and a suit was filed in OS No. 89/88 filed by those plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction. It is also seen from the averments that in the said suit that IA II was filed under Order 1 Rule 8. The said IA was allowed and exparte injunction was granted by the learned Judge. He had also ordered special Amin. A combined reading of the averments in this petition and in the light of the evidence what is clear to me is that it cannot be brushed against as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not the judicial act of the petitioner that is being questioned but the conduct of the petitioner is noticed and questioned by this Court. Therefore the argument of the learned counsel that charge No. 1 does not amount to misconduct cannot be accepted. It is not the judicial act of the petitioner that is being questioned but the conduct of the petitioner is noticed and questioned by this Court. Therefore the argument of the learned counsel that charge No. 1 does not amount to misconduct cannot be accepted. ( 13 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner repeatedly argued that there is no proof of second charge. In the light of this submission, carefully perused the second charge made against the petitioner. The second charge is that the petitioner was living with one Smt Paanini R Priscilla as narrated in detail in charge memo. Petitioner referred to me the evidence to contend that this charge is not proved and that enquiry officer has not chosen to consider the same in his report. To satisfy myself, I carefully examined the evidence available on record. Petitioner admittedly is a judicial officer. He is judicially trained. He is not an ordinary delinquent as in other cases. There is also evidence of Smt Padmini. She had categorically stated in evidence that she is married to the brother of the petitioner. She has stated that she is a christian by community. She admits of a group photograph. She has stated that she gave birth to a child. When she was shown Ex. P-3 she has admitted her signature appearing on the said document. She admits that it is in her handwriting. She has given that application Ex-P3 to the Medical Officer to correct the mistaken entry in mentioning her husbands name. She says that two days after delivery a court staff came to the house and stated that in the hospitals register her husbands name has been entered as Yashwanthkurnar and the xerox copy of the said entry had been obtained by some official and thereafter he gave the letter Ex. P3 for correction of entries. She further says that DW-l did not stay with Yeshwanthkumar at any point of time. In all school records, Yeshwanth Kumar is shown as guardian for her son Santhosh Kumar. In the given set of circumstances, it cannot be said that the second charge is not proved, as repeatedly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact the enquiry officer has noticed all these aspects and he has referred to various documents in coming to II conclusion. In the given set of circumstances, it cannot be said that the second charge is not proved, as repeatedly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact the enquiry officer has noticed all these aspects and he has referred to various documents in coming to II conclusion. The material on record shows that there is some evidence and that evidence has been accepted by the enquiry officer. In such circumstance, this court cannot sit in appeal in II petition under Art. 226 to cane to II different conclusion as argued by the counsel. The argument of no proof with regard to the second charge is therefore rejected. The next contention ill with regard to appointment of the Presiding Officer. Learned counsel refers to me Rule. 11 to contend that the appointment of the Presiding Officer requires reconsideration. Admittedly petitioner has not filed any objection with regard to appointment of Presiding Officer at any point of time. This Court on an earlier occasion had only directed to commence the evidence from the stage of defence. In these circumstances, this argument is to be noticed for rejection. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner finally raised a plea that it has taken 11 years for disposal. A careful reading of the material would show that larger portion of the time was spent in this Court at the instance of the petitioner. In the given circumstance, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter on this ground. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel further relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of RC Sood Vs. High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan ( 1998 (5) SCC 493 ). A reading of the said judgment would show that it stands on a different footing as I see from the material on record. In this case the Supreme Court noticed that same of the complaints against the petitioner in that case were undated and it is not known when they were received. It was on such complaints, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court has committed a mistake in the said case. That case is totally distinguishable on facts. ( 16 ) THE Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India, 1999 (7) SCC 409 is also not available to the petitioner. It was on such complaints, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court has committed a mistake in the said case. That case is totally distinguishable on facts. ( 16 ) THE Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India, 1999 (7) SCC 409 is also not available to the petitioner. That was a case with regard to wrong interpretation of law by the petitioner in that case and that was held to be misconduct. ( 17 ) IN the case on hand what is to be noticed is the conduct of the Judge and not the decision of the Judge. The bundle of facts of this case would point out to the conduct of the Judge in the case on hand. Looking from any angle, Petitioner has not made out any case whatsoever for my interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 18 ) IN this connection it is proper to refer to the views of the great authorities with regard to the conduct of Judicial Officers. This Court in ILR 1999 Kar 2413 (Kazi Mohd. Muzeebulla Vs. High Court of Karnataka) has referred to the speech of Sir. Winston Churchill, which again is noticed by me in WP No. 28166/96 (G V Ronald Vs. High Court of Karnataka ). The Speech of Sir Winston Churchill reads as under:"that the Judges are required to confirm to standards of life and conduct far more severe and restricted than that of ordinary people. Indeed their constitutional obligation to do justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will, is a high moral command and exacting ~ demand on their conscience. If you are what you wear you have to keep up certain manner of conduct which puts you in a category beyond the members of bureaucracy and politicians. Judges, Like Ceasars wife, must be above suspicion. " ( 19 ) A great Judge of this Country, Justice Krishna Iyer in his book Justice At Cross Roads observes as under; judge power is vast and strong in the keeping of those who are fearless and flawless surrogates of public justice. But the judiciary as a fiduciary must pay a price they must be clean in public and private life, on the bench and off the bench and be worthy to be watch dogs, not lap dogs sentinels, no sycophants. But the judiciary as a fiduciary must pay a price they must be clean in public and private life, on the bench and off the bench and be worthy to be watch dogs, not lap dogs sentinels, no sycophants. ( 20 ) THIS again is noticed by me in G V Ronalds case. These observations and judgments of this Court would show that the judiciary must pay a price - they must be clean in public and private life, on the bench and off the bench as stated by a great jurist and Judge of Apex Court. Petition stands rejected. --- *** --- .