High Court should take steps to protect honest officers against motivated complaints.

(Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in G.O. (2D) No.208 dated 29-09-1999, quash the same.)

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.

Challenge is to the order in G.O.(2D) No.208 Home (Courts I-A) Department, dated 29-09-1999 passed by the first respondent, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service in respect of certain charges alleged against him, which have been held to be proved in the enquiry.

2. Facts, in brief, as culled out from the pleadings on record, are:

The petitioner was a Judicial Officer in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. A complaint was made to the High Court by one R. Muthusamy against the petitioner alleging corruption and misconduct. The complaint was received by the Vigilance Cell of the Madras High Court on 2-12-1991.

The Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri issued an office memorandum, dated 12-5-1992, calling for the remarks of the petitioner in respect of certain allegations made against him in the transfer petition (Crl.M.P. No.1286 of 1992) seeking transfer of the criminal case in C.C. No.152 of 1991, which was pending before the petitioner, to some other criminal court. The allegation was that the petitioner demanded bribe for delivering a favourable judgment. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 14-5-1992 denying the allegation of demand of bribe.

Another office memorandum dated 21-7-1992 was issued to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri calling for his remarks on the complaint made by an advocate that out of personal animosity and inimical disposition of mind, he has shown discriminatory attitude in the mater of imposition of sentence and awarded higher sentence to one Kaveriammal, who was convicted in STR No.2698 of 1992. Petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the allegations made against him.

These incidents had happened during 1991-93 when the petitioner was serving as Judicial Magistrate-I, Dharmapuri. In both these matters, an Advocate by name Kabilan had appeared for the accused and the transfer petition was made by him.

While the matter stood at that stage, the petitioner was served with a memorandum in ROC No.176/96 Con.B2 dated 22-10-1996 with a copy of the report of the Special Officer (Vigilance Cell) and copies of the testimonies of the witnesses said to have been recorded during the preliminary enquiry held on 31-08-1996. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation, which he did on 19-11-1996. In his explanation, the petitioner stated that since the subject-matter of the report related to the period July, 1991 to June, 1992, he could not recollect the factual details and, therefore, requested for copies of certain documents to enable him to make an effective explanation. Permission was granted to the petitioner to peruse the records in the presence of the Registrar of this Court, which was done by him on 14-12-1996. Ultimately, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 2-1-1997, denying all the allegations. The petitioner, in his explanation, also raised the plea of prejudice in view of the whooping delay of more than four years and also due to non-availability of certain important documents relating to the allegations for his persual.

The explanation offered by the petitioner was found to be not acceptable. By proceedings dated 4-12-1997, five charges were framed against the petitioner. The crux of the charges is alleged demand of bribe and misconduct relating to the criminal cases in C.C. No.152 of 1991 and STR No.1698 of 1992, which were pending before the petitioner when he was Judicial Magistrate-I, Dharmapuri during 1991-93. Petitioner submitted his statement of defence on 29-1-1998.

District Judge, Dharmapuri and the Principal Sub-Judge, Krishnagiri were appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer respectively to conduct the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after conclusion of the enquiry proce