V KALIAMOORTHY Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE NAGAPATTINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against order contained in D.P. No.12/02 dated 8th July, 2002. By the said order, Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam, inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the order of punishment has been passed without giving opportunity to defend his case, as the copies of documentary evidence were not supplied prior to filing of written statement.THE brief case of the petitioner is that prior to his deputation as Nazir of District Munsif Court, Sirkali, he was working as Assistant in Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam. During the tenure of posting in that court, certain laches were noticed and for such dereliction of duty, an explanation was sought for from him on 27th July, 2001, wherein the following allegations were levelled :-"1) I.A. 66/97 to condone delay in presenting R.T.A. was taken on file on 27.10.97 and it was pending disposal on the file of principal sub court, Nagapattinam. That Section 5 application (of Limitation Act) was posted from 28.10.98 to 4.12.98. Thiru.Kaliyamoorthy omitted to call that application subsequently. And contrary to that, he took the main appeal to file on 17.12.99 by numbering it as R.T.A. 34/99 and by making an endorsement falsely as if Section 5 application I.A.66/97 was allowed on that date, viz., 17.12.99 by condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.2) So also, while Section 5 application I.A.62/97 was pending disposal and it was adjourned from 28.10.98 to 4.12.98, the delinquent Thiru.V.Kaliyamoorthy without calling that application subsequently chose to take the main appeal itself on file on 17.12.99 by assigning the number R.T.A.33/99 and by making an endorsement as if that Section 5 application was allowed on that date, viz., 17.12.99 by condoning the delay.3) In I.A. 28/97 in unfiled R.T.A., two applications one under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the other to set aside abatement were presented in Court and the delinquent without taking on file initially Section 5 application, thought fit to take on file straight away the petition to set aside order of abatement and it was ultimately allowed on 4.4.01 thereby causing unnecessary complications in the judicial work."THE petitioner asked for documents, but they being court records, he was asked to peruse the case records. THE enquiry officer, by his proceeding dated 8th Aug., 2001, also allowed the petitioner to peruse the case records. THEreafter, he filed his show cause reply on 3rd Sept., 2001 stating that in view of ensuing annual inspection of his court and due to pressure of work in his branch and certain other branches, which he was attending then, the laches happened to occur, which was neither wilful nor wanton in committing those mistakes and considering the fact that he was having hardly 28 months of service to retire, requested to let him off taking a lenient view.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner took only plea that the copies of the documents were not provided prior to filing of written statement. He relied on the Bench decision of this Court in Union of India - Vs - T.K.Choudhari reported in 2003 (3) MLJ 372 in his support. Reliance was also placed on Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. - Vs - S.Lal & Anr. reported in 1998 (2) LLJ 799 wherein Supreme Court held that opportunity that is given to a delinquent must be an effective opportunity and not a mere presence and whenever copies of documents proposed to be utilised are not supplied to him and he is at the same time called upon to submit his reply, it cannot be held to be an effective opportunity to defend his case.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while referred to the aforesaid facts, submitted that a lenient view has been taken and punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been passed though in view of the gravity of charges, more harsh punishment could have been inflicted.