V C RAJAMANICKAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court against the proceedings of the first respondent issued in G. O. Ms. No. 360, dated 08. 04. 2005, Public (Special-A) Department, dismissing him from service after the disciplinary proceedings in which it was found that the petitionguilty of three charges out of six charges framed against him.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as District Munsif, Dharmapuri in the year 1986. He was promoted as Sub-Judge in 1989 and thereafter he was promoted as the Additional District Judge in 1998. When he was posted at Perambalur as Principal District Judge, the Bar Association (Criminal), Perambalur, sent a representation dated 28. 05. 2002 signed by the Joint Secretary, R. Kannan, to the Hon'ble Portfolio Judge seeking transfer of the petitioner from the post of Principal District Judge, Perambalur to some other station. In the said representation the allegation interalia was that the Public Prosecutor-T. Pichai Pillai has started a rival Bar Association called District Court Advocates Association and that the petitioner was supporting the said association and its members. On 04. 06. 2002 the Bar Association submitted another representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice requesting that suitable action be taken against the petitioner and in the said representation apart from the allegations contained in the representation dated 28. 05. 2002 it was alleged that the petitioner has made disrespectful remarks about the integrity of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court. On 14. 06. 2002 the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that the enquiry into the grave charges of corruption was contemplated. On 08. 07. 2002, the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, Madras High Court, after conducting a preliminary enquiry submitted a report. In the said report the Special Officer found the allegations relating to demand of bribe, remarks against the Hon'ble High Court Judges and not adhering to Court working hours were prima facie substantiated and the allegation relating to a staff member acting as a tout was unsubstantiated. In the said report, the Special Officer has also observed that there was no evidence for connecting the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor-Mr. Pichai Pillai and that the allegation was not substantiated. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation to the said report of the Special officer, Vigilance, and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11. 09. 2002. In his explanation the petitioner submitted that he was a victim of the bitter rivalry between the Bar Association (Criminal) and the association headed by the Public Prosecutor. As his explanation was not accepted the charge proceedings were issued in order R. O. C. No. 48/2002-Con. B2 dated 25. 11. 2003 framing six charges against the petitioner. Since Charge Nos. 1, 5 and 6 have been found to be not proved by the Enquiring Judge, Charge Nos. 2, 3 and 4 which have been found to be proved alone are set out below:-

(3.) PURSUANT thereto the second respondent forwarded all connected records to the Government of Tamil nadu. The Government of Tamil nadu after an independent examination of the records pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings decided to accept the recommendation of the High Court, Madras, for imposing the punishment of "dismissal from service" on the petitioner and accordingly the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G. O. Ms. No. 360 Public (Special-A) Department dated 08. 04. 2005 imposing the penalty of "dismissal from service" on the petitioner. Against the said order of dismissal the above writ petition has been filed.