The petitioner joined the Tamil nadu State Judicial Service as a District Munsif. In due time he was promoted as a Subordinate Judge Grade II and then as a District Judge, Grade I. He has put in a total number of 24 years of service. While he was serving as a District and Sessions Judge, of Ramanathapuram at Madurai, he was served with a Confidential Official Memorandum dated 12. 1991 asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the basis of certain allegations which were catalogued, as 18 in number. This memorandum was issued by the two Hon’ble Judges of the High Court (hereinafter called “the Hon’ble Enquiring Judges”). He submitted his explanation on 253.1991. By a communication dated 12. 1991 the Hon’ble Enquiring Judges held that the explanation was not satisfactory and proceeded to frame 18 charges against the petitioner. We do not propose to set out the 18 charges because we are upholding a jurisdiction issue raised by the petitioner and therefore, we are of the opinion that it would not be proper to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges on 10. 1991. The Hon’ble