Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5674
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
S.Seetharaman
Versus
The Registrar General & Another
W.P.No.7941 of 2009
Decided on : 18-12-2009
For Petitioner: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, S.C. For M/s.AL.Ganthimathi, For R1: Mr.A.L.Somayaji, S.C. For Mr.V.Ayyathurai, For R2: Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar, S.G.P.
Headnote:
The petitioner, a Civil Judge, was accused of demanding a bribe from the complainant to grant favorable judgments in two suits filed by the complainant's wife. The Inquiry Officer found the charges against the petitioner to be conclusively proved and recommended his removal from service. The High Court, after considering the evidence and the findings of the Inquiry Officer, concluded that the charge of bribery was not established and that the petitioner's actions in dismissing one of the suits were not motivated by corrupt intent. The Court also noted that the petitioner had been unnecessarily made to suffer due to the ill-motivated complaint made by the complainant. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of removal from service, and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with all monetary and service benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Civil Judge, was accused of demanding a bribe from the complainant to grant favorable judgments in two suits filed by the complainant's wife. The Inquiry Officer found the charges against the petitioner to be conclusively proved and recommended his removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court, after considering the evidence and the findings of the Inquiry Officer, concluded that the charge of bribery was not established and that the petitioner's actions in dismissing one of the suits were not motivated by corrupt intent.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner demanded a bribe from the complainant to grant favorable judgments in two suits filed by the complainant's wife? 2. Whether the petitioner's actions in dismissing one of the suits were motivated by corrupt intent?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the charge of bribery was not established because the evidence of the complainant was not corroborated by any other acceptable evidence and there was a contradiction in regard to the evidence of the complainant and his wife as to the date on which the petitioner allegedly demanded the bribe. The Court also held that the petitioner's actions in dismissing one of the suits were not motivated by corrupt intent because the petitioner had followed the procedure prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code and the appeal against the petitioner's judgment had been allowed.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of removal from service, and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with all monetary and service benefits.
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the removal of the petitioner from service, issued under G.O.(D).No.791 Home (Courts I) Department, dated 04.07.2008 and to quash the same and to further direct the respondents to reinstate him in civil service as Civil Judge, Junior Division with all attendant benefits, seniority, promotion, increments etc.
2.The second respondent, by its G.O.(D).No.791 Home (Courts I) Department dated 04.07.2008, has passed orders, inter alia, stating that it has accepted the recommendation for removing the petitioner from service and ordered the imposition of penalty of Removal from Service of the petitioner.
3.The petitioner has joined the judicial service as a Civil Judge, Junior Division through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1998 and before that, he practised as an Advocate for about 14 years. Before his removal from service, he has been serving as Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai. While he was serving as Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai,he was issued with a Charge Memo bearing C.No.122/2001/VC in Roc.469/2001/VC, dated 17.05.2006 by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras stating that he has called one G.Panneerselvam, Pudukkottai (complainant) to his room at Central Lodge, Pudukkottai where he has been staying and demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/-as bribe for granting decree favourably in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995 filed by his wife and on refusal to comply with the said demand, he has partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and completely dismissed the suit in O.S.No.502 of 1995, even though in both the suits, the parties are the same and the issues involved are similar and thus indulged in corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and thereby rendered himself to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973.
4.The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said charge memo and an Inquiry was initiated on the basis of the complaint of G.Panneerselvam, husband of the plaintiff in two suits in O.S.Nos.501 and 502 of 1995 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai. The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to conduct the departmental inquiry against the petitioner and he was directed to submit his report. The Inquiry Officer viz., the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur has conducted the departmental inquiry against the petitioner.
5.The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charge and an Inquiry has been conducted by the Inquiry Officer viz., the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur who has given a finding that the charges against the petitioner have been conclusively proved by the prosecution by unimpeachable evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and the unassailable documentary evidence of Ex.P.1 to P.19 adduced on the side of the complainant. The findings of the Inquiry Officer viz., the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur dated 21.06.2007 have been considered by the Honourable Administrative Committee of this Court and by enclosing a copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was directed to submit his further representation, if any, in the above matter within 15 days from the date of High Courts Official Memorandum C.No.122/2001/VC in Roc.No.469/2001/VC. The petitioner has submitted his further representation dated 20.12.2007. The Honourable Administrative Committee by considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the further representation submitted by the petitioner, in the meeting held on 23.06.2008, has resolved to impose the punishment of removal from service and further the matter has been placed before the Honourable Full Court in the meeting held on 31.03.2008 and the Full Court has resolved to approve the minutes of the Honourable Administr
