Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Elipe Dharma Rao, R. Subbiah, JJ.
R. Perachi
Versus
Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi and Others
W.P. (MD) No. 7121 of 2007 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007
Decided on : 28th August, 2008.
(B)Service-Transfer-Punishment-Natural justice-If the transfer of an employee results in losing a chance of promotion, it is a punishment and principles of natural justice has to be followed before effecting such transfer.
The petitioner’s seniority, on his being transferred from Thoothukudi to Ramanathapuram District was fixed and the result is that the petitioner has become the junior in the cadre, as a result, he was posted as Sherishtadar of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Ramanathapuram, which is a lower category post than that of the P.A. to the District Judge, which the petitioner was enjoying, though as an additional charge. Thus the impugned transfer order has worked as an order of punishment against the interest of the petitioner, since he lost the opportunity of being promoted to the next cadre, which, rather, he was enjoying while working in the District of Thoothukudi, though as an additional charge, besides reducing his cadre.
Para 16
(C)Constitution of India-Art.216-Service-Judiciary-High Court-Full Court-As per Art.216 an administrative decision would be treated as decision of the High Court only if it taken by its full Court-Administrative decision taken by the Chief Justice of the High Court without the general or special approval of the full Court would not be a decision of the High Court.
As per Article 216 of the Constitution ’High Court’ means Chief Justice and his companion judges. Therefore, the matter should have been placed before the Full Court. We are aware that if a Committee is constituted on the basis of a resolution passed by the Full Court to consider such aspects and if a decision has been arrived at by the said Committee, the said decision of the Committee so constituted has to be treated as the decision of the High Court itself. ………... At the cost of repetition it is to be held that no such Committee has been appointed or the matter has been placed before the Full Court and painfully the impugned decision has been taken unilaterally by the then Honourable Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, which has been communicated through the second respondent/ Registrar General, which cannot be said to be satisfying the meaning of ’High Court’ embodied in the Constitution. On this ground also, the impugned transfer order is liable to be set aside. Para 20
(D)Service-Judiciary-High Court-Staffs-Protection- It is the duty of the higher judiciary to protect the staff members of the lower judiciary from the persons, who make reckless, baseless and unfounded allegations, by way of anonymous petitions.
It is the duty of the higher judiciary to protect the officers of the lower judiciary from the persons, who make reckless, baseless and unfounded allegations, by way of anonymous petitions. The same reasoning would apply even in the case of staff members. Para 25
(E)Constitution of India-Art.216-Service-Judiciary-High Court-Transfer-Punishment-Natural justice-A transfer made on a complaint that was enquired discreetly would be treated as punishment and before effecting such transfer principles of natural justice is to be observed.
When once the transfer was effected on the basis of the alleged complaint of the judicial staff and remarks were also called for from the District Judge, to satisfy the principles of natural justice, the second respondent/Registrar General should have considered the remarks of the District Judge as a preliminary report, thereafter should have issued a notice to the petitioner and others by making it known the contents of the complaint to the petitioner and others to enable them to explain the same. Therefore, as seen from the above, it is not a transfer simpliciter and it is the transfer based on the complaint made through anonymous letter against the petitioner and calling for report behind the back of the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity to explain or rebut the same and for these reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of transfer imposed on the petitioner is punitive in nature since it had drastically affected his future prospects. Para 30
(F)Constitution of India-Art.216-Service-Judiciary-High Court-Anonymous petitions- The High Court Registry should not act upon the anonymous petitions against the officers and staffs, unless they are signed and bears true postal address of the complainant.
Since in the case on hand, the entire action has been initiated based on the anonymous petition received by the Registry, which has been deprecated by the Honourable Apex Court time and again, in the interest of the Tamil Nadu Judiciary and the officers and staff of both the High Court and the lower judiciary, to serve as a confidence building measure, we consider it appropriate to direct the Registry not to act upon such anonymous petitions, unless they are signed and bears true postal address so as to call upon the said person to give a statement or adduce evidence in support of his contentions, if need be. Para 35
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
The petitioner was working as Sheristadar in the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi from 15.10.2001 and he being the senior most, he was kept in additional charge of the post of P.A. to the District Judge, Tuticorin, which fell vacant from 1.5.2006, by the orders of the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, dated 28.4.2006. He continued in the additional charge till 20.9.2006.
2. In the meantime, an unsigned anonymous petition was received by the High Court, including the Registrar Vigilance, stated to be from 'the Judicial employees of the Thoothukudi District', on 2.1.2006, against P.A. to the District Judge, Sheristadar, Head Clerk, Central Nazir of the District Court, Thoothukudi and Sheristadar of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thoothukudi alleging that they all are corrupt and they have formed themselves into rival groups in order to be dominant, as a result of which, the administration is suffering. The said complaint was forwarded to the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi for being dealt with by him and for submitting a report thereon to the Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras. Accordingly, the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, has submitted his report in D. No. 3616, dated 28.4.2006. As could be seen from the files submitted before us, the said communication of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi reads as follows:
"Against Thiru N. Srinivasan, then Personal Assistant to District Judge, Thoothukudi some allegation was made and as per High Court direction dated 12.5.2005 in Roc. 1080/05/C1, the Principal District Judge had submitted a report against the then Personal Assistant and thereafter he was transferred to Tirunelveli District. From 27.6.2005 Thiru R. Subramanian is working as Personal Assistant to District Judge and his work was to the officer's entire satisfaction. Thiru R. Perachi is Sheristadar in District Court, Thiru S. Subramanian is Sheristadar of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court; Thiru S. Kuttiappa Essakki is Central Nazir and Thiru T.K. Shankar is Head Clerk both in District Court, Thoothukudi. Of the four, the work of Thiru S. Subramanian, Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court is a little bit satisfactory. The above four persons have formed themselves into rival groups in order to be dominant in the matter of administration. These four persons act against administration's interests and hence their continuance in Thoothukudi District will spoil the administration."
3. Pursuant to the said report submitted by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi and after ascertaining the vacancy position from various Districts, by the impugned order dated 19.9.2006, the petitioner was transferred to Ramanathapuram District and thereafter assigned the post of Sherishtadar of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ramanathapuram. Thiru S. Kuttiappa Esakki, Central Nazir, Thoothukudi District was transferred to Tiruchirappalli District and Thiru T.K. Sankar, Head Clerk, Thoothukudi District was transferred to Madurai District. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The petitioner would submit that having served the Judicial Department in various capacities for more than 28 years, he was under the expectation that his services would be recognized and would be promoted to the post of Personal Assistant to the District Judge, which is the maximum post he could reach before his retirement on superannuation, since he was the senior of the two Sheristadars working in Thoothukudi District in Category-I. He further submitted that the then P.A. to the District Judge, Thoothukudi retired on superannuation on 30.4.2006 and hence even in the month of April, 2006, service particulars of the two Sheristadars Category-1 were called for by the first respondent and among the two candidates, whose records were called for, he was the senior and the 3rd respondent was the junior and their educational qualifications are also almost similar; that in the month of June 2006, t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
