Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RAJIV SHAKDHER, ABDUL QUDDHOSE, JJ.
S.Krishnan - Petitioner
Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Home Department - Respondents
W.P.Nos.7191 and 7192 of 2013 and W.P.Nos.33494 and 33495 of 2014
Decided On : 25-10-2017
The petitioner, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged the suspension order dated 02.12.2003, show cause notice issued on 23.12.2011, and final orders dated 29.05.2014 and 23.10.2013 imposing a penalty of reduction in pension by 25% for a period of three years and five years respectively. The petitioner argued that the delay in completing disciplinary proceedings and the prolonged suspension for a period of nine years is in violation of statutory rules and Fundamental Rule 29(2), that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not issued a prior show cause notice before suspension and reversion, and that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was suspended from service on 02.12.2003 based on grave charges of misconduct, including availing loans without permission, issuing cheques that were dishonored, and unauthorized leave. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, but the writ petition was filed only in October 2012, after a lapse of more than nine years. The petitioner also challenged the show cause notices issued in 2011 and the final orders imposing the penalty of reduction in pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had misconducted himself on a regular basis, including availing loans without permission, issuing dishonored cheques, and unauthorized leave. The court held that the petitioner's conduct was unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and that the punishment imposed was in accordance with law.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in completing disciplinary proceedings and the prolonged suspension for a period of nine years violated statutory rules and Fundamental Rule 29(2)? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not issued a prior show cause notice before suspension and reversion? 3. Whether the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charges?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in completing disciplinary proceedings was not unreasonable considering the nature of the charges and the need for a thorough investigation. The court also held that the petitioner's prolonged suspension was justified given the gravity of the charges against him. 2. The court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses or let in oral evidence on his side. 3. The court held that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the charges. The court found that the petitioner's misconduct was serious and that the punishment imposed was in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned Government Orders were valid and legal and that there was no infirmity in the same.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
1. Writ Petition No.7191 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the suspension order dated 02.12.2003 in R.O.C.No.84/2003-Con.B2 issued by the Registrar General of this Court under Sub Rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
2. Writ Petition No.7192 of 2013 has been filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the second respondent dated 23.12.2011.
3.Writ Petition No.33494 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the final order dated 29.05.2014 of the first respondent in G.O.[D]No.392, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 29.05.2014, by which the petitioner was imposed penalty of reduction in pension by 25% for a period of three years.
4.Writ Petition No.33495 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the final order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the first respondent in G.O.[D]No.869, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 23.10.2013, by which the petitioner was imposed penalty of reduction in pension by 25% for a period of five years.
5. Since the impugned orders which are the subject matter of challenge in all the writ petitions arise out of the misconduct of the petitioner and the consequential punishment, a common order is passed by us in all the three writ petitions.
6. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
The petitioner was selected as a Judicial Officer by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 4.11.1988 and he joined the service as Judicial Magistrate at Rasipuram on 4.11.1988 in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. He has worked in various Courts and was promoted as Additional Subordinate Judge from the date of his joining in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service and thereafter promoted as District and Sessions Judge and finally posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri on adhoc basis. He had performed his duty as Judicial Officer to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and with utmost integrity, devotion to duty as expected of a Judicial Officer. But to his shock and surprise, while working as Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri on adhoc basis, by the proceedings of the second respondent in R.O.C.No.84/2003-Con.B2 he was placed under suspension on 02.12.2003 without any enquiry and reverted to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) by the order of the second respondent with immediate effect, in public interest until further orders. The proceedings further stated that he was entitled to subsistence allowance and dearness allowance as admissible to him under Fundamental Rule 53(1).
7. As per the order of suspension, his headquarters was indicated as Dharmapuri and he was barred from leaving the headquarters without obtaining prior permission from this Court. He was further directed to hand over the charge to the I Additional District Judge, Dharmpauri at Krisnagiri immediately and furnish his residential address to this Court. On his suspension from service, the I Additional District Judge, Dharmpauri at Krisnagiri was placed in full additional charge of the post of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri until further orders.
8. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension dated 02.12.2003 and thereafter, two show cause notices were also issued to him. W.P.Nos.7192 and 7193 of 2013 have been filed by the petitioner challenging the show cause notices which were subsequently closed by the orders of this Court since final orders have been issued by the first respondent pursuant to the show cause notices.
9. In W.P.No.7191 of 2013, the petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 02.12.2003 and in W.P.No.33494 of 2014, the petitioner challenges G.O.(D)No.869, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 23.10.2003, they are the subject matter of consideration in this common order.
10. Even though suspension order was issued by the second respondent on 02.12.2003, the petitioner challenged the order of suspension
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
