M KANDAN Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders of the 1st respondent, dated 31.8.99 issued in the D.E.No,3/93 and the order dated 26.11.99 issued in the Ref.No.Nil and the order of the II Respondent, dated 20.9.2002, issued in the Ref No.R.O.C.No,5896/2001/01 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits treating the period from4.2.94 to 30.6.99 as duty period and to award the consequential benefits.) The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended as follows :-

(3.) IN the present case, the Principal District Judge himself was the disciplinary authority and the enquiry had been conducted by the Principal District Judge. The Principal District Judge had found the petitioner guilty in respect of two charges relating to demand and acceptance of bribe for issuance of certified copy of various orders of the Court. At that stage, however, the disciplinary authority instead of dealing with the proceedings himself, had placed the concerned records before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass appropriate orders. The order of compulsory retirement passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was found vulnerable by the High Court on account of the fact that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not the disciplinary authority competent to impose punishment and, therefore, such order was non-est in law. Thereafter the matter was remitted to the Principal District Judge, who himself is the disciplinary authority.