A ALAGUSUNDARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.995, Public (Spe-cial-A) Department, dated 11.9.1996 dismissing him from service, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he was directly appointed as District and Sessions Judge Grade-II under G.O.Ms.No.1129, dated 21.7.1987. After completion of probation and training, he was posted as First Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tirunelveli on 19.1.1989. While he was working as First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, he disposed off a Civil Appeal in A.S.No.40 of 1988 and a Sessions case in S.C.No.105 of 1987 among other civil appeals and other sessions cases. Aggrieved by his judgment in A.S.No.40 of 1988, one Kunammal lodged a complaint against him as if he demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000 to render a favourable judgment and since she did not pay the said sum, he dismissed her appeal. Likewise being aggrieved by his judgment and sentence, one of the accused in S.C.No.105 of 1.987, namely, Laser made a complaint that as if he demanded a sum of Rs.25,000 for acquitting all the accused and only a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid by one of the accused Laser and since he failed to pay the balance of Rs. 15,000 he convicted all the accused for life. THEreafter, an official memorandum was issued by the second respondent on 30.7.1992 asking him to submit his explanation in respect of certain allegations. He submitted his explanation denying all the allegations, however, without considering his explanation, a charge Memo was issued on 5.3.1993 levelling five charges against him. On receipt of the charge Memo, he submitted his explanation on 21.6.1993 and also submitted an additional written statement on 23.2.1994. Since every action against the Judicial Officer is to be taken only by the Full Court, a fresh decision was taken by the Administrative committee appointed by the Full Court and the said committee issued a fresh charge Memo on 31.8.1994. To the fresh charge Memo dated 31.8.1994, which is a repetition of the earlier charge Memo dated 5.1.1993, he submitted his explanation on 31.10.1994. Later on, the matter was enquired by Hon?ble Judges of this Court. After enquiry, the Hon?ble Enquiring Judges held charges 1 and 2 alone were proved and other charges namely, charges 3 to 5 were not proved. THE enquiry report was forwarded to him on 13.2.1996 and along with the enquiry report he was to submit his further representation within 2 weeks as to why the findings recorded should not be accepted and penalty as per rules imposed. It is further stated that because of certain personal problems particularly, due to his wife's illness, he requested more time for submission of his reply. On 12.7.1996 he received another memo basing on the report of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur as if he had made false representation for not filing the written statement within the time granted. Without granting further time, merely on the basis of the incorrect report of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, the Administrative Committee I even on 27.4.1996 decided to accept the findings of the Enquiring Judges and the matter was placed before the Full Court on 26.8.1996 and the full Court also accepted the views of the Adminis- trative Committee I and the matter was forwarded to the first respondent. THE first respondent has since passed the order of dismissal accepting the recommendation of the High Court and the order dismissing him from service was issued in G.O.Ms.No.995 of Public (Special-A) Department, dated 11.9.1996 and he is challenging the said proceedings in this writ petition.

(3.) MR.K.Chandru, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, contended that with the available evidence and in the absence of any clinching evidence, the conclusion of the Enquiring Judges holding that charges 1 and 2 are proved cannot be sustained. He also contended that the enquiry committee have adopted different modes for charges 1 and 2 and for charges 3 to 5, hence the ultimate conclusion based on their report is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader, after taking us through the entire proceedings, including charge memo, explanation, enquiry proceedings, decision of the Full Court and the ultimate order of the Government dismissing the petitioner from service would contend that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure and petitioner was given ample and adequate opportunity to defend his case. Inasmuch as the enquiry committee came to the conclusion regarding charge Nos.l and 2 based on the acceptable oral and documentary evidence and the same having been approved and accepted by the Full Court as well as the State Government, interference by this Court on the factual findings is very limited; hence he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.