S ULAGANATHAN Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in G.O(2D).No,806, Home (Courts-1), dated 3.12.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. In this WRIT Petition, the petitioner, a Civil Judge (Junior Division), has challenged G.O.(2D).No,806, dated 3.12.2007 issued by Home (Courts-1) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service under Fundamental Rule 56(2) (for short, "FR.56(2)") on the recommendation of the Full Court of this Court. In view of the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement, the order of suspension has also been revoked.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 10.12.1999 and posted as Additional District Munsif and served at different places. While he was functioning as Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate-I, Cheyyar, on 1.7.2003, during a surprise visit made by the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, 13 unfilled remand warrants signed by the Magistrate and 7 unfilled bail bonds signed by the petitioner-Magistrate, were seized from the almirah (cupboard) of the petitioner's Head Clerk. THE said Head Clerk was asked to submit explanation by the Principal District, Judge. As the Principal District Judge was not satisfied with the explanation, departmental proceedings were initiated against the Head Clerk by framing charges against the Head Clerk, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 24.9.2003 and on enquiry conducted by the District Munsif, Arni, it was held that the charges were not made out against the Head Clerk.

(3.) FROM the counter affidavit filed by first respondent-Registrar General of this Court, it appears that the petitioner filed a Review Petition on 4.1.2008, which had been forwarded on 11.1.2008 to the State Government by this Court through its Administrative Side. The State Government, in their letter dated 22.2.2008, have sought for remarks of this Court. In the meanwhile, the Writ Petition was preferred.