SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar, JJ.
P.C. Savithiri - Appellant
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Another - Respondent
WP No. 5327 of 2021 & WMP Nos. 5906 & 5907 of 2021
Decided On : 07-03-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :AL. Ganthimathi, Senior Counsel, AR. Karthik Lakshmanan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Anandakumar, Government Advocate, M. Santhanaraman, Advocate.

Judicial Officers must maintain integrity; systemic lapses resulting in failure to uphold justice warrant severe disciplinary action such as dismissal.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973 - Rule 17(b) - Constitutional mandate under Article 226 - Dismissal from service of a Judicial Officer challenged - Charges of dereliction of duty and misconduct against officer proved - There are lapses in adherence to judicial procedures leading to serious failures in judicial duties. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 12, 20)

(B) Judicial Integrity - A Judicial Officer is expected to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty; failure to ensure proper custody of accused and inappropriate orders rendered the judicial process compromised. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Civil Judge, faced dismissal for various charges, including improper handling of remanding processes and failure in maintaining necessary records, leading to serious misconduct. The final report indicated that the charges related to serious lapses at her Judicial Officer's responsibilities.

Findings of Court:
The Enquiry Officer's findings regarding lapses and the punishment were upheld, emphasizing that the charges proved warranted the dismissal.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around whether the judicial officer's actions constituted dereliction of duty and if the disciplinary proceedings followed due process.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted as per the statutory procedures and the findings were adequately supported by evidence. The serious nature of the lapses justified the harsh penalty of dismissal.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. charges against petitioner for dismissal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's defense and submissions. (Para 3)
3. arguments on behalf of respondents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. disciplinary authority's procedural compliance. (Para 8)
5. findings on charges supported by evidence. (Para 9 , 10)
6. court's analysis on charge proof and judicial integrity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
7. conclusion on dismissal's proportionality. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

ORDER

S.M.Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to order dated 05.10.2020 in G.O.2(D) No.239 of the first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Civil Judge, Junior Division with effect from 05.10.2020 with all attendant benefits.)

1. The punishment of dismissal from service issued vide G.O.(2D) No.239, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 05.10.2020, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Tamil Nadu Judicial Service on 12.02.2009. She was serving as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Thenganikottai during the year 2015. A charge memorandum was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 02.06.2017 framing 13 charges against the petitioner. They are:-

    “CHARGE No.1

    That you, Tmt. Savithiri, Civil Judge of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services, (now under suspension) while functioning as District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, though on 09.10.2015 remanded the two accused by name Balamurugan son of Raji and Krishnamoorthy son of Raji in Crl.No. 194/2015 of Anchetty Police Station, had allowed them to go scot free without remand and that having very well known that those accused were not at all in judicial custody, you ordered bail on 12.10.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.2382 of 2015, as if those accused were in Judicial custody, thereby you violated the mandatory provisions of Law, Rules and Procedure and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty ad have acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a judicial Officer, violating Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government servants ' conduct Rules, 1973” thereby you rendered yourself liable to be proceeded with under Rule 17B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

    CHARGE No II:

    That you, Tmt. Savithiri, Civil Judge of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services, (now under suspension) while functioning as District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, though on 12.10.2015 remanded the two accused by name Thiru Naveen Kumar, Son of Kaveriappan in Crime NO. 479/2015 of Thally Police Station till 26.10.2015, and having very well known that the said accused not all sent to judicial custody, you ordered bail on 13.10.2015 in Crl.M.P. No. 2379 of 2015, as if the said accused were in Judicial custody, thereby you manipulated the records. Thus, you have committed the acts of violation of mandatory provisions of Law, Rules and Procedure and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and have acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, violating Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government servants ' conduct Rules, 1973” thereby you rendered yourself liable to be proceeded with under Rule 17B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

    CHARGE No. III

    That you, Tmt. Savithiri, Civil Judge of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services, (now under suspension) while functioning as District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, has passed order on 03.10.2015 to remand the accused by name Tmt. Sujatha, Wife of Thirumalesh in Crime No.501/2015 of Kelamangalam Police Station, in spite of the remand order, you have not taken any steps to send the accused to prison and allowed her to move freely which is evident from the petition for surr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top