- (1.) THE petitioner, a dismissed Court Officer of the High Court of Karnataka has challenged in this writ petition the order of dismissal on several grounds. He has arrayed as the first respondent-The High Court of Karnataka represented by its Registrar General, the Hon'ble Chief justice of the High Court of Karnataka as the second respondent and the Registrar (Judicial) as the third respondent. The second respondent is arrayed as party respondent because he is the disciplinary authority who has passed the order of dismissal. The Office has raised an objection on scrutiny of the papers to the effect that the petitioner should state in the cause-title who is the authorized representative of the second respondent. The petitioner in reply to the said office objection has stated, that the disciplinary authority who has passed the impugned order has been rightly impleaded in the said capacity as the administrative/disciplinary actions of the Hon'ble chief Justice have been questioned. The said authority has been impleaded eo nomine, a party to the petition. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Court for orders on this office objection.
(2.) FROM the office objections and the explanation offered by the petitioner as aforesaid, the question that arise for consideration is as under. (a) When the Chief Justice of a High Court as a Disciplinary Authority passes an order imposing a penalty on an employee of the High Court, in a writ petition filed challenging the said order, whether he should be made eo nomine a party? (b) If he is made eo nomine a party who should represent him before the Court?
(3.) ON the aforesaid question, I have heard Sri. H. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.;