Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.T. SELVAM, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
R. Alexander – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar General High Court, High Court Buildings, Chennai & Another – Respondent
W.P. No. 33469 of 2013
Decided on : 23-02-2018
For the Petitioner:Ar.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for S.D. Venkateswaran, Advocate
For the Respondents:C.T. Mohan, M. Sricharan Rangarajan, Advocates.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Civil Servants [Discipline and Appeal] Rules – Rule 17 – Quash Direction – Reinstatement – Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the Government Order passed by the 2nd respondent in G.O.[D] Home [Courts-I] Department, with a prayer to quash the same and for a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Civil Judge with all attendant benefits, seniority, promotions, increments etc., attached to the post. – Held, No prejudice shown or established on record. – There is no violation of principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer also arrived at the finding on the evidence and probabilities available on record. – Hence, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. – Merely because some documents have been filed by the writ petitioner at the time of submitting his representation, to show that P.W.1 appeared as an advocate that itself cannot be a ground to reach a conclusion that the entire proceedings are motivated one. – Even perusing some of the documents, merely because P.W.1 appeared for one of the employees against whom disciplinary proceedings initiated by the delinquent officer, that cannot be taken as motive. – Court have no reason to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent. – Judicial Officers are the backbone of the judicial system. – Entire independence of judiciary is always depends upon the character, conduct, honesty and integrity, etc., of each of the judicial officers. – Any one of the judicial officer is tainted with any of the above characters, the independence of the judiciary would be at peril and would be laughingstock. – It is hard reality that direct evidence is not coming forth as against the corrupt officials. – When the disciplinary authority taken note of enquiry report and passed an order, such order cannot be mechanically interfered merely on the ground of technicality. – Court have persuaded ourselves not to interfere with the order of the Second Respondent imposing the punishment of removal of the delinquent officer from service. – Writ Petition Dismissed.
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the Government Order passed by the 2nd respondent in G.O.[D] No.1012, Home [Courts-I] Department, dated 08.12.2012, with a prayer to quash the same and for a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Civil Judge with all attendant benefits, seniority, promotions, increments etc., attached to the post.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, are as follows:-
[a] The writ petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge [Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate I Class] vide G.O.Ms.No.1517, Home Department dated 16.11.1999. After necessary training, he was posted as District Munsif, Pollachi, on 10.12.1999. Thereafter, he was posted as District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District for one year. Again he was transferred to Tiruchirappalli as Judicial Magistrate No.5. Subsequently, transferred as Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti; Principal District Munsif at Kuzhithurai in Kanyakumari District and finally, posted as XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and as such, the writ petitioner was continuously working for 13 years till the impugned order of removal from service was served on him on 19.12.2012.
[b] On 02.05.2008, the petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo by the 1st respondent in C.No.40/2004/VC in ROC.No.233/2004 and 298/2004/VC dated 23.04.2008 under Rule 17[b] of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants [Discipline and Appeal] Rules. The Article of Charges in the said Memorandum contained six charges. The petitioner has given his written statement of defence only in respect of Charges No.1 and 3 and sought time to peruse the records and to reply in respect of the other charges. However, on 03.11.2008, the petitioner was served with the Proceedings in C.No.40/2004/VC in ROC.No.233/2004 and 298/2004/VC dated 29.10.2008, contemplating enquiry with regard to the charges and appointing the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer examined six witnesses out of nine, cited in the Charge Memo and gave a finding that Charges No.1 and 3 were proved against the petitioner and other charges were not proved. Thereafter, on 15.06.2011, the 1st respondent issued the Official Memorandum dated 30.05.2011 along with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him and directed the petitioner to make further representation within fifteen days. The 1st respondent had chosen to issue the said Memorandum with regard to imposing of punishment on the writ petitioner based on the Enquiry Officer's Report, without affording him an opportunity to give his explanation to the Enquiry Report. The writ petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to the 1st respondent, raising several grounds/points including false and motivated complaint by one Mr.Senthilkumar, irregularities committed in the enquiry proceedings and violation of principles of natural justice. Besides, he has also requested the 1st respondent to reopen the enquiry since the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 and for adducing defence evidence before the Enquiry Officer.
[c] When the matter stood thus, on 19.12.2012, the petitioner was served with the impugned order / Government Order in G.O.[D] No.1012, Home [Courts-I] Department, dated 08.12.2012, passed by the 2nd respondent, imposing the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The 1st respondent, viz., the Registrar General, has filed a counter affidavit dated 10.10.2014, refuting the allegations of the writ petition and stated that sufficient opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner for adducing the defence witnesses and that the enquiry has been conducted properly and the petitioner has no
