Disciplinary action against District Judge.

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 Enquiring Judges informed the petitioner that a departmental enquiry would be commenced on 212. 1991 at 1.30 p.m. For the very same reason mentioned above, we do not also propose to deal with the arguments relating to the lack of proper opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. To proceed with the narration the Hon’ble Enquiring Judges submitted their findings on 14. 1992 on each of the charges. Thereafter the petitioner received a communication OROC.No.27/90/Con B.2, dated Nil from the respondent stating that the Administrative Committee No.1 of the High Court had considered the findings given by the Hon’ble Enquiring Judges and the further representation submitted by the petitioner and the matter was placed before the Full Court which decided to pass the impugned order, awarding the minor penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect. The Full Court also decided to enter the punishment in the confidential records of the officer. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the said communication from the respondent and quash the said proceedings.

.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein the material facts relating to the narration of events are not disputed. The respondent has stated that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case in the departmental enquiry. The other grounds raised by the petitioner on merits have been dealt with in detail by the respondent in the counter-affidavit. As we have already mentioned, we did not propose to go into the merits of the case. According to the respondent, the constitution of the Hon’ble Enquiring Judges by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court alone was perfectly in order. It is also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the various points raised in the affidavit of the petitioner have been dealt with, by the Hon’ble Enquiring Judges and the counter-affidavit speaks to refer to the report of the Hon’ble Enquiring Judges as part of the counter-affidavit. The minutes of the Administrative Committee No.1. dated 10. 1993, was despatched to the petitioner only on 20.1.1994. One other point that is mentioned in the counter-affidavit relates to the imposition of the punishment under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classificaton Control and Appeal) Rules. It is stated that no punishment was imposed under Rule 17(b) and therefore the validity of the appointment of the Hon’ble Enquiring Judges does not at all arise for consideration.

3. The reason why we have refrained from going into the merits of the case or the arguments relating to the lack of opportunity and the violation of principles of natural justice is, because one of the grounds raised in the writ peti