Administrative Committee can only be constituted by Full Court.

Shivaraj Patil, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 20.9.1996 passed by a learned single judge in Writ Petition No.2252 of 1995.

2. The respondent herein joined the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as District Munsif, and at present he is a District Judge, Grade I. When he was serving as a District and Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram, at Madurai he was served with a show cause notice on 12. 1991 asking him why disciplinary action should not be taken against him based on certain allegations. He submitted his explanation to the same on 23. 1991. The explanation so submitted was found not satisfactory. 18 charges were framed against him. Two Honourable Judges appointed by the Honourable the Chief Justice conducted enquiry and submitted their findings on 14. 1992 on the charges. Thereafter the respondent received a communication Roc.77/90/Con.B2 dated Nil from the appellant stating that the Administrative Committee No. 1 had considered the findings given by the honourable enquiring Judges and the further representation submitted by the respondent. The matter was placed before the Full Court, which passed the order awarding a minor penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect in proceedings Roc.77/90/ Con.B2.

3. The validity and correctness of the said order was challenged by the respondent in W.P.No.22696 of 1993 and sought for a writ of certiorari. The said writ petition was admitted on 212. 1993. The learned single Judge referred the writ petition for further hearing by a Division Bench stating that some of the issues raised were of great importance and were likely to recur for adjudication. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 3. 1994 which is reported in T.S.Sankaranarayan v. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, 1994 W.L.R. 484. Since one of the grounds raised in the said writ petition related to the very appointment of the honourable enquiring Judges to take up the disciplinary proceedings stating that they were appointed by the Honourable Chief Justice and not by the Full Court, the Division Bench did not go into the merits of the other contentions raised in the writ petition in the view it took.

4. The Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petition held that the constitution of the honourable enquiring Judges itself was invalid and therefore the entire disciplinary proceedings were vitiated and consequently the impugned order imposing minor punishment of stoppage of two increments was quashed by allowing the writ petition. The said judgment of the Division Bench was not appealed against. However Review Application No. 14 of 1994 was filed by the appellant seeking clarification, stating certain ambiguity contained in the judgment was to be removed. The Review application was disposed of on 18. 1994 clarifying on the two points sought for as under:

“The learned Special Government Pleader says that there is some room for doubt as to whether the initiation should be done by the Full Court or by a small body. Having regard to the earlier opinion expressed by the Division Bench on the question of taking disciplinary action, we are of the opinion, that the same course should be adopted even in the case initiation of disciplinary proceeding. In other words, the initiation can be done either by the Full Court or by a smaller body of Judges, appointed by the Full Court. 3. The second point on which the learned counsel seeks clarification is whether the respondents can take de novo action because only a technical flaw was pointed out by this Court. On this aspect, we are definitely of the opinion that this matter was in fact agitated by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the Division Bench decidedly left this question open without observing one way or the other. It is also well known that a writ of certiorari only removes the defective order from the files of the respondents. Therefore, we do not propose to say anything more or