IMPORTANT POINT
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 statutory rules, absence of perversity in findings, and proportionality of punishment.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the respondent in R.O.C.No.46774-A/2019/Complaint Cell/B2, dated 16.08.2021 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to grant all attendant carrier benefits of Super Time Scale to the petitioner with all consequential and other attendant monetary benefits.)

1. The order of punishment dated 16.08.2021 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect is under challenge in the present writ proceeding.

PETITIONER’S CASE:

2. The writ petitioner joined as Directly recruited District Judge on 18.02.2011 and compulsorily retired from service in public interest vide G.O.Ms.No.299, Public (Special – A) Department 20.04.2022. The petitioner was relieved from service on 07.05.2022. A charge memorandum was issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 29.06.2020 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2016. The statement of charge framed against the petitioner is as under: “Charge:

That you, Thiru. M.Suresh Viswanath, District Judge (now under suspension), while functioning as Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi and holding Full Additional Charge of the post of Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, inspite of the specific direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Appeal (Crl.) No.1784 of 2019 vide order dated 21.02.2019, directing the accused to first surrender before the trial Court (concerned court) and thereafter file regular bail application, and the specific direction to the trial court that if regular bail application is moved, after giving 48 hours notice to the Public Prosecutor, it shall decide the same preferably on the same day, have passed an order dated 02.03.2019 in Cr.M.P. No.1023/2019, contrary to the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by entertaining the bail application prior to the surrender of accused, without perusing the statement of the victim girls recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C, the case diary and relevant materials, and granted bail to the accused on the same day on 02.03.2019 in the case of heinous offence under POCSO Act, and thereby you have not only wilfully disobeyed the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but also failed to apply your judicial mind for the reasons best known to you.

Thus, you have committed the acts of serious misconduct of favouritism, wilful disobedience and dereliction of duty which are unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and have also failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973. Hence, you rendered yourself liable to be proceeded with under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.”

3. Annexure – II to the charge memo provides statement of imputations in support of the charge framed against the petitioner. Annexure – III provides list of documents. Annexure – IV is list of witnesses to examine. There is no infirmity as such regarding the procedures followed for issuance of charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 2016. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges on 14.07.2020.

4. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiring Judge. Enquiry was conducted by affording opportunity to the delinquent officer. He defended his case by participating in the process of enquiry. The Enquiring Judge has submitted his enquiry report on 25.03.2021. The findings of the Enquiring Judge was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and a second show cause notice was issued seeking objections from the delinquent officer on the findings of the Enquiring Judge. The delinquent officer submitted his further objec