ORDER :

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The short but important question of law which arises in this writ petition is whether an authority higher to the delinquent officer can suspend the delinquent officer when the higher authority is not the appointing authority.

2. The facts which arise in this case lies in a very narrow compass. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as senior bailiff in Thiruvallur District. He was promoted as a Junior Assistant. A memo dated 21.05.2019 from the office of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District, was served on him alleging that the petitioner had neglected the following assignments :-

1. Charge sheet register not updated.

2. Summons/Notice not issued to the accused/parties.

3. CMP's have not been rounded off in CMP Register.

4. Petitions u/s. 317 CRPC and Admission petitions have not been assigned with CMP Number.

5. Cases listed for hearing were not prepared daily.

3. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation and he was served with another memo by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, on 17.07.2019, stating that he is lethargic and has been negligent in performing his work. The memo stated that about 30 bundles were not indexed and the writ petitioner would have to place these records before the officer, after indexing the same. The memo stated that the salary for the month of August 2019 would not be paid until the 30 bundles are indexed. District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, issued memo dated 21.08.2019, calling for an explanation from the delinquent officer as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him for not performing his work properly. The writ petitioner was to provide an explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the memo issued against him.

4. On 01.10.2019 the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, issued a charge memo against the writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as Discipline and Appeal Rules), on the following charges:-

"That you Thiru. P. Anantha Kumar Junior Assistant, District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi. had omitted to assign new case numbers for 26 cases listed in Annexure V, of this proceedings inspite of the fact that the cases were received from J.M.I. Ponneri on transfer as early as March-April 2019 and the bundles were traced from your cup-board after complaints from police and counsels. It is found that your are lethargic and negligent in your duty and showed scant regard to the directions in the running note file dated 8.5.2019. Memorandum dated 21.8.2019 vide Dis. No. 1827/2019 was issued to your and your explanation was found not satisfactory. The said conduct of the individual amounts to gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

2. That you Thiru. P. Anantha Kumar Junior Assistant, District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi. by order dated 10.9.2019, in the running Note file, was given a final chance to index disposed case records (Civil and Criminal) as on 31.8.2019 and to produce them to the officer on 30.9.2019. It was also intimated in the order that if compliance report is not filed on 30.9.2019, serious disciplinary proceedings shall follow. But the individual has shown scant regard to the directions either under three Memorandums issued to him on 21.5.2019, 17.7.2019 and 21.8.2019 or under the running note file dated 8.5.2019 and finally under officer order dated 10.9.2019."

5. The delinquent was been placed under suspension by the very same order of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate. The proceeding dated 01.10.2019 has been challenged by the writ petitioner, primarily stating that the facts do not warrant initiation of proceedings under 17(b) of Discipline and Appeal Rules, which are initiated to award major penalties. The charge memo was also challenged on the ground that the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Mag