A complaint against a judicial officer can only be enquired into under the Orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, and any further proceedings will be decided by the Chief Justice or the Committees appointed by him.

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the District Munsif, Namakkal, while discharging his judicial function, committed irregularities, which made the petitioner to make a complaint to the first respondent, the Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras. The Vigilance Cell sent recommendations on the same to the Principal District Judge, Namakkal to enquire into the complaint. Also, the proceeding before the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, dated 20.12.2004 which is the Enquiry Report, is filed in the typed set of papers.

2. The entire exercise by the petitioner is highly misconceived. When a complaint against a Judicial Officer is made, it can be enquired into under the Orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Any further proceedings on which action to be taken will be decided by him either through the Committees appointed by him or by the Full Court. The petitioner being the complainant has no further role to play in this matter. The Supreme Court, vide decision Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3469 : 2000 (9) SCC 313 held that once a complaint is given against a judicial officer his role ends there. The relevant passage found in paragraphs 9 and 10 are as follows:

“In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected’ with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for”misconduct“on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a”domestic“inquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

10. In view of the above, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the High Court by which the departmental charge-sheet issued to Dr. U.N. Biswas was quashed. The permission to file the special leave petition is, therefore, refused.”

3. In the light of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and clearly not maintainable. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2087 are closed.