Point of law: Judicial service is not an ordinary Government Service and the Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, who was a District Judge dismissed from service by virtue of Ext.P23 order of the 1st respondent-State Government, is challenging in this writ petition, Ext.P2 order of suspension issued by the High Court, the consequential disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and the order through which he was dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner entered service in the subordinate judiciary of the State as a Munsiff, in the year 1983, pursuant to selection made by the Kerala Public Service Commission in a special recruitment conducted for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. He was promoted as Sub Judge in the year 1989 and subsequently as District Judge in the year 1998. Satisfactory completion of his probation in the cadre of District Judge was declared in the year 2000. While working as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner was suspended from service with effect from 10-10-2001, by virtue of Ext.P2 order issued by the High Court. An attempt of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 in a writ petition before this court failed, since the case was dismissed in limine through Ext.P3 judgment, which was confirmed by a Division Bench in a Writ Appeal as per Ext.P4 judgment. A preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner through the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Kerala. Based on the report of the enquiry Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, intimating proposal for initiating disciplinary action under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, (herein after referred as CCA Rules for short) and calling for his explanations, if any. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to Ext.P5 notice, as per Ext.P6. An appeal against the order of suspension was preferred before the Hon'ble Chief Justice as provided under Rule 22 of CCA Rules. Another application for revocation of suspension was also filed under provisions of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings. Both the appeal as well as the request for revocation of suspension were declined through Ext.P9 proceedings issued by the High Court. Thereafter the petitioner was issued with detailed 'Memo of Charges' containing 'statement of allegations' as per Ext.P10, to which the petitioner filed written statement of defence as evidenced from Ext.P11. During pendency of the said proceedings, another 'Memo of Charge' enclosing detailed 'statement of allegations' was issued against the petitioner as per Ext.P12. The petitioner again submitted detailed written statement of defence as per Ext.P13. A Hon'ble Judge of this court was appointed as inquiring authority and a detailed enquiry was conducted by appointing a District Judge as the Presenting Officer. The inquiring authority was changed pursuant to retirement of the learned Judge appointed. A newly appointed Judge as inquiring authority had conducted the inquiry after examination of various witnesses and by marking of documents. The petitioner had adduced evidence by examining witnesses and marking of various documents. The petitioner was given liberty to submit written proof if any, and on that basis Ext.P19 was submitted before the inquiring authority. On completion of the inquiry, a detailed report as per Ext.P20 was submitted to the High Court, holding the petitioner fully guilty of charge No.(i) and partially guilty of charge No.(iv) & (v) in Ext.P10 memo dated 18-10-2002 and also partially guilty of charge No.(ii) in Ext.P12 memo dated 22-04-2003. Through the enquiry report it was recommended for dismissal of the petitioner from service, considering the grave nature of the allegation proved against him and holding that the petitioner does not deserve to hold any office connected with administration of justice. Based on the report of enquiry the High Court had issued Ext.P21 show cause proposing punishment of dismissal from service, to which the petitioner had filed Ext.P22 representation.