IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that disciplinary actions must be proportionate to the misconduct, and reliance on irrelevant circulars can invalidate charges.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order in R.O.C.No.13/2021/Con.B2 of the 1st respondent dated 20.01.2023 and quash the same.

The order of punishment dated 20.01.2023 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect is challenged in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge and duly promoted to the cadre of Senior Civil Judge. A charge memorandum was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in proceedings dated 15.12.2021. The charge against the petitioner reads thus:-

"That you, Thiru.E.Rajendrakannan, while functioning as Sub Judge, Sankari, inspite of the instruction from the Principal District Judge, Salem, had deliberately failed to intimate the missing of case records to Registrar (Vigilance) High Court, Madras, as mandated in High Court's Circular in Roc.No.2055/A/2009/F1, dated 14.05.2009, as detailed in the statement of imputations in Annexure-II, for the reason best known to you.

Thus, you have committed acts of serious misconduct, viz., gross negligence, dereliction of duty, wilful disobedience and insubordination and have also failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty and have acted in a manner, which is unbecoming of a Judcial Officer, violating Rule 20 of "The Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973", thereby you rendered yourself liable to be proceeded with under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules."

Annexure-II to the charge memorandum provides statement of imputations in support of the charges, Annexure-III denotes the list of documents and Annexure-IV provides list of witnesses. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in respect of the charges framed against the writ petitioner.

3. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an enquiry officer, who, in turn, conducted enquiry by affording opportunity to the delinquent officer. The enquiry officer submitted his final enquiry report holding that the charge against the writ petitioner is proved. The finding of the enquiry officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect was imposed.

4. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the charge would not constitute misconduct under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings on such routine affairs would result in discouraging of judicial officers. The charge framed based on the circular dated 14.05.2009 has no relevancy with reference to the allegations set out in the charge memo. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings itself has been proceeded based on the erroneous footing and thus, the punishment is to be set aside.

5. Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose by stating that the lapses noticed had resulted in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Procedures as contemplated were followed scrupulously. The finding of the enquiry officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and punishment was imposed. Since the punishment is not a major penalty, no interference is called for. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand, it is to be considered whether the charge is a routine lapse warranting any disciplinary proceedings and imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect is justified or not?

7. The charge against the writ petitioner would indicate that while functioning as Sub Judge, inspite of the instructions from the Principal District Judge, Salem, the writ p