IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN Writ Petition No.8072 of 2025 and WMP No.9028 of 2025 Thiru N.Alagesan, S/o.Narasimhan, Formerly Secretary/Senior Civil Judge, District Legal Service Authority, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District Residing at No.1/25, T.Kollapatty, Thekkampatty Village, Moongipaly Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District 636 012. .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Government of Tamil Nadu, Shankar Road, Beach Road, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The Hon'ble Registrar General, High Court Madras, Chennai 600 104. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.55 dated 22.02.2024 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate and reinstate the petitioner in service and grant suitable promotion with attendant benefits as per rules.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiayagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.S.John J. Raja Singh Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 Mr. C.R.Malarvannan, Standing Counsel, for R2 ******** ORDER (Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

Challenge is to the order of dismissal from service dated

22.02.2024 on the recommendation of the High Court. The petitioner, who was serving as a Judicial Officer, came under the scanner, when the review at the age of 50, as per FR 56(2),was taken up.

2. Since it was found that there were several unexplained credits in the Savings Bank Accounts of the Judicial Officer and his wife, a discrete enquiry was made by the Vigilance Cell of the High Court. The Vigilance Cell found prima facie case against the Judicial Officer, which resulted in framing of charges. As many as five charges were framed against the Judicial Officer.

3. Two of the charges related to undisclosed credits and third charge related to a business that has been carried on by his wife in money lending and chit fund without permission of the High Court. The fourth and the fifth charges related to purchase of properties by the Judicial Officer in the name of his close relatives viz. Mother-in-law, Sister-in-law and Brother-

in-law.

4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and at the enquiry as many as six witnesses were examined on the side of the employer and 18 documents were produced. The delinquent Official examined three witnesses including himself and 30 documents were produced. Three documents were produced through the witnesses.

5. Upon a consideration of the evidence, the Enquiry Officer concluded that all the five charges were made out. The High Court accepted the Enquiry Officer’s Report and the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After receipt of his explanation, the same was considered to be not satisfactory and a recommendation was made by the High Court to impose the maximum punishment of dismissal from service. It is this punishment which is challenged by the petitioner before us.

6. Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there was no allegation of corruption against the Judicial Officer and non-withdrawal of salary by itself would not amount to a corrupt practice. He would also submit that those persons in whose name the properties stand are not his near relatives or dependants and therefore, the assumption of the Enquiry Officer that these properties were purchased from and out of the funds provided by the Judicial Officer cannot be sustained. We are unable to sustain the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel.

7. A Judicial Officer cannot be treated on par with the other employees. High level of integrity is expected from Judicial Officers at least. The Enquiry Officer has, as of fact, found that the explanation offered by the Judicial Officer to v