BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 16.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

W.P.(MD)No.5580 of 2022

J.Anushia ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Principal District Judge,

Thoothukudi District,

Thoothukudi.

2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Thoothukudi. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in D.E.No.1 of 2019 dated 31.12.2021 imposing the punishment of “removal from service” and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner

into service with all consequential benefits.

For Appellant : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja,

for Mr.A.R.Kannappan

For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman

* * *

J U D G M E N T

Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi vide proceedings dated 28.07.2009. She was suspended from service in the year 2013 on the ground of insubordination. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. The proceedings concluded on 15.04.2014. The period of suspension was treated as punishment and revoked. She was called upon to report for duty within three days. The petitioner failed to do so. She chose to remain absent for several more months. Reminder was sent to the petitioner on 07.07.2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi. To this reminder also, there was no response. Vide representation dated 05.01.2016 addressed to the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, the petitioner appears to have sought posting. Thereupon, charge memo was issued on 31.01.2019 containing two articles of charge. Since the writ petitioner's explanation was not received, enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The enquiry officer rendered finding that the charges have not been established. The enquiry report dated 16.05.2019 was submitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi. The Chief Judicial Magistrate differed with the findings of the enquiry report. Communication to this effect was sent to the writ petitioner vide letter dated 09.12.2021. After receiving the writ petitioner's further representation, the impugned order dated 31.12.2021 came to be passed removing the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner raised the following three contentions:-

a) The punishment of removal from service is disproportionate. b) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi was not competent to pass the impugned order. The impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction.

c) The principles of natural justice have been breached as the enquiry report was not furnished.

4. Per contra, the first respondent had filed a detailed counter affidavit and the learned Standing counsel for the Registry took us through the averments set out therein. He submits that the impugned order is well reasoned and that it does not call for any interference.

5. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6. As already mentioned, the charge memo dated 31.01.2019 contained two articles of charge. They are as follows:-

“ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;.1 jpUkjp.N[.mD\pah> mYtyf cjtpahsh;>

ePjpj;Jiw eLth;> tpiuT ePjpkd;wk; (eLth; epiy)> J}j;Jf;Fb jw;NghJ (Stated away from Duty) Mfpa ePtph; Jiwthhpa tprhuiz vz;.7/13y; ePtph; kPz;Lk; gzpapy; Nru 15.04.2014 Njjp md;W cj;juT toq;fpAk; mjd; efy; 22.04.2014k; Njjp md;Wk;> jw;fhypf gzp ePf;fk; uj;J nra;J kPz;Lk; gzp epakdk; nra;ag;gl;l cj;jutpd; efy; ehs; 23.04.2014 md;W mDg;gg;gl;Lk; ckf;F mYtyf Fwpg;ghiz ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; %yk; f.vz;.1496 Njjp:23.07.2014 md;W mDg;gg;gl;Lk; ePtph; mjw;F fPo;g;gbahky; gzpapy; NrUtjw;F ve;jtpj Kaw;rpAk; Kfhe;jpuk; vJTk; njhptpf;fhky; eph;thfj;jpw;F ,ilA+W nra;jjd;

fhuzj;jhy; ck;kPJ jkpo;ehL Fbikg;gzp(xOq;F kw;Wk; Nky;KiwaPL) tpjp

17(b)d;gb Fw;wr;rhl;L tid