IMPORTANT POINT
The preponderance of probabilities is sufficient for punishing a public servant under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, and the standard of proof required for departmental disciplinary proceedings is distinct from that of a criminal trial.

JUDGMENT :

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 pertaining to the G.O.Ms.No.742, Public (Special-A) Department, dated 07.11.2022 passed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay salary and all terminal benefits due to the petitioner, which the petitioner would have been entitled to, had he retired from service on 30.06.2023 in the normal course together with 12% per annum.)

1. FACTS IN BRIEF :

The writ petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service on 11.11.1988. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 09.03.1998 and thereafter promoted as Additional District Judge on ad hoc basis on 01.11.2006. The petitioner was reverted back to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide High Court's proceedings dated 09.02.2009. Again he was promoted as Additional District Judge on 11.03.2010 and served as IV Additional District Judge, Erode at Bhavani from 01.04.2010 to 13.03.2013.

2. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.03.2013 in contemplation of enquiry into grave charges vide High Court's proceedings dated 13.03.2013. The petitioner was not permitted to retire from service on the date of his superannuation on 30.06.2013 and kept under suspension.

3. A letter dated 05.08.2011 had been received from one Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate addressed to the Registrar (Vigilance) by enclosing a compact disk, requesting for certain information under the Right to Information Act, with regard to the identification of voices in the compact disk, which contained the alleged telephonic conversation among three persons, viz., Mr.Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswathi of Kanchi Mutt, Mr.T.Ramasamy, the then Sessions Judge, Puducherry and Ms.B.Gowri Kamatchi related to Mr.Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswathi. Subsequently on 18.08.2011, a complaint has been received from one Mr.P.Sundarrajan, Advocate, addressed to the Registrar Vigilance, requesting to register a case and to probe the tapes circulated, with regard to the telephonic conversation purported to be made between viz., Mr.Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswathi, who was arrayed as the prime accused in Sankar Raman's murder case in SC No.94 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Court, Puducherry, Mr.T.Ramasamy, the then Sessions Judge, Puducherry, devotee and another person, discussing monetary payments and promised payments. 4. The complaint was placed before the Hon'ble Administrative Committee. On 24.08.2011, Mr.N.Authinathan, formerly Administrator General and Official Trustee, Chennai, was nominated as Enquiry Officer to conduct preliminary enquiry into the complaint. Mr.N.Authinathan submitted his report on 19.09.2011 and it was placed before the Hon'ble Administrative Committee.

5. The enquiry report contained the Expert's opinion of the Deputy Director, Forensic Sciences Department dated 15.09.2011. The Expert has opined that contextual discontinuity and abrupt ending of the conversation found in the audio files forwarded for examination indicate the possibility of editing of the source audio files. The Expert has further opined that the content of the audio can be authenticated only after examining the actual recording devices (carrying the source audio files), which were used to record the original conversation. The Expert has further stated that the complainant had not cooperated with the enquiry and concluded that the materials gathered during the enquiry do not contain even the materials relating the facts in issue which merit any further action.

6. In the meantime, Mr.P.Sundarrajan, Advocate filed WP No.19894 of 2011 before the High Court of Madras on 22.08.2011 praying for Writ of Mandamus, directing the Registrar (Vigilance), High C