Back
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SUBRAMANIAN, G.ARUL MURUGAN, JJ
V.Santhakumari – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, High Court, Madras, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 29.04.2022, whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the petitioner, which was also confirmed by the order of the first respondent/appellate authority dated 15.07.2024.
2. The petitioner was originally selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior Assistant on 17.08.2009. Her services came to be regularised and the probation was declared with effect from 17.08.2011. Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant on 19.02.2013 and was further promoted as Head Clerk and joined in the District Munsif Court, Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District, with effect from 03.05.2019.
3. Based on a complaint dated 25.03.2021 received from one S.Panneerselvam, S/o.Singaram, alleging that the petitioner is receiving bribe amount between Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- for numbering new civil suits in the District Munsif Court, Pappireddipatti, had requested to take necessary legal action. A discreet enquiry was conducted, which disclosed prima facie evidence against the petitioner. A memo was issued on 07.0
The court upheld the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer for proven corruption, emphasizing the integrity required in judicial service.
Procedural fairness requires that employees facing major penalties be given reasonable opportunities to present a defense and cross-examine witnesses in disciplinary inquiries.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural rules, and inconsistent penalties for similar offenses are impermissible under principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasons for disagreeing with enquiry officer findings and issue a second show cause notice before imposing punishment, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary proceedings can be unjust if based on identical circumstances leading to a criminal acquittal, emphasizing the need for reliable evidence.
The court affirmed that deviations from an Enquiry Officer's findings can be justified if serious misconduct is established, and the imposed penalty must align with the gravity of the charges.
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision for removal from service based on proven misappropriation, affirming the fairness of the enquiry process despite procedural challenges.
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar emplo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
