IMPORTANT POINT
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 the proven misconduct.

ORDER :

S.M. Subramaniam J.

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent relating to the impugned proceedings in Roc.No.133/2014/VC/B2, dated 30.12.2019 and quash the same as illegal and incompetent, non-est in law and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent to grant all monetary and service benefits to the petitioner.)

1. Writ petition has been instituted challenging the punishment of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner vide proceeding dated 30.12.2019 by the respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge in the year 2003. She was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in the year 2014. The departmental disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner based on the complaint given by Thiru Mohammed Nazeer Ahmad, Director of M/s. EMM Yen Infomesh Business Solution Private Limited, who is an accused in C.C.No.2448 of 2009, on the file of the VIII-Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations as false and vexatious. Not satisfied with the explanations, the Disciplinary Authority framed the following three charges:

“Charge No.1:

That you, Tmt.T.Jayashree, while functioning as VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai had posted the case in C.C.No.2448 of 2009 on 26.12.2013 for arguments and to 30.12.2013 for further arguments. On 30.12.2013, after hearing both sides, you had posted the said case for Judgment on 31.01.2014. After posting the case for Judgment, you had simply adjourned the case to 03.02.2014, 10.02.2014, 17.2.2014 without any valid reasons and on 03.03.2014 you had suo-moto re-opened the case for clarification. After hearing the clarification, you had finally pronounced the Judgment on 10.3.2014, and thereby you had caused undue delay in disposing the case, for the reasons best known to you.

Thus, your aforesaid act of prolonging the case and adjourning it without any valid reasons after it has been posted for Judgment amounts to irregularity or negligence in discharge of your official duty and creates suspicion over your integrity. You have thus violated Rule 20 of the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973. Your conduct is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, thereby rendering yourself liable to be proceeded under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Charge No.2:

That you, Tmt.T.Jayashree, while functioning as VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in C.C.No.2448 of 2009 had pronounced the Judgment on 10.03.2014. But had dictated the order of punishment portion alone to the stenographer on 10.03.2014 and on the same day, you had dictated Paras 1 to 9 of the judgment and from Paras 10 to 12 on 11.03.2014 and from Paras to end on 12.03.2014. It is evident from the shorthand note book that the judgment was not completely dictated on 10.3.2014 and it was completed only on 12.03.2014. Thus it is clear that without preparing the full judgment, you had pronounced it, which is against the mandates of Section 353(1) to (4) CrL.P.C.

Thus, your aforesaid act of violating the procedures of law amounts to dereliction in discharging your official duties and deviation from Judicial discipline and it is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thus violated Rule 20 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973. Thus, you are liable to be proceeded under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Charge No.3:

That, you, Tmt.T.Jayashree, while functioning as VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town Chennai had not furnished the copies of Judgment in C.C.No.2448 of 2009 to the accused/complainants, immediately on 10.3.2014, the date of pronouncement of Judgment. But provided only on 12.03.2014.