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
| 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:-
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must be based on some evidence, comply with natural justice, and ensure that the penalty is not disproportionate to t....
Judicial officers must maintain integrity and decorum; misconduct undermining public confidence is serious, but not all charges may warrant maximum punishment.
In disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the charged officer to disprove allegations, and adherence to natural justice is essential for valid outcomes.
The charges framed against an individual should be proportionate to the delinquencies committed, and the enquiry should be conducted in a fair and proper manner, adhering to the principles of natural....
Disciplinary findings must be based on legally admissible evidence; lack of evidence warrants judicial intervention under Article 226.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must comply with natural justice, be based on sufficient evidence, and impose proportionate punishment for proved mis....
The court's decision underscores the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing the need for compliance with natural justice, presence of some evidence, observance of statu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.