K.V. MAHENDRA BOOPATHI Vs. HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the first respondent in G.O. (2D) Ms. No. 195, Home (Courts-1) Department dated 08.06.2018 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service as Judicial Magistrate with all attendant benefits such as seniority and promotion.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge on 11.03.2009. After necessary training he was posted as Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. Thereafter, the petitioner had served in various Districts and finally he was posted as Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District. While so, on 22.03.2016, the petitioner was served with a charge memo by the first respondent under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules containing two charges and he was called upon to submit his explanation within 21 days from the receipt of charge memo. The charges framed against the petitioner reads as follows:-

(3.) By another order dated 31.03.2016, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending contemplation of a departmental enquiry. The petitioner submitted his preliminary defence statement on 12.04.2016 to the charges framed against him, in which he sought to furnish certain documents referred to in the charge memo and the statement recorded during a discreet enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance). Accordingly, the documents sought for by the petitioner were furnished by proceedings dated 06.05.2016 and he was granted 15 days time to submit his additional defence statement. The petitioner also submitted the additional defence statement on 01.06.2016 along with the duly filled in questionnaire form, as required. The additional statement of defence submitted by the petitioner was placed before the Administrative Committee. The committee, not being satisfied by the explanation offered by the petitioner, resolved to proceed with departmental enquiry against the petitioner. For the purpose of conducting such an enquiry, Thiru. M. Jothiraman, the then District Judge, Sivaganga was appointed as enquiry officer and Tmt. J. Radhika, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai was appointed as Presenting Officer. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the Department the complainant Mr. S.M.P. Amalan, Advocate was examined as PW1 and Mr. K. Sivanathan, working as Office Assistant in the Judicial Magistrate Court at Melur was examined as PW2 and Exs. P1 to P9 were marked. On behalf of the delinquent/petitioner, four witnesses were examined and Exs. D1 to D3 were marked. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 21.09.2016 stating that both the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The report of the enquiry officer was sent to the petitioner seeking his further explanation. The petitioner also submitted his further representation on 27.11.2016. The further representation of the petitioner along with the report of the enquiry officer and other material documents were placed before the Administrative Committee. On 07.02.2018, the committee resolved to impose the punishment of dismissal from service and referred the matter to be placed before the Full Court for approval. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Full Court of this Court on 19.03.2018 and the Full Court has resolved to approve the decision of the Administrative Committee. On the basis of the order passed by the Full Court, the second respondent, considering the defence of the petitioner as also the report of the enquiry officer, has passed the order in G.O. (2D) Ms. No. 195, Home (Courts-1) Department dated 08.06.2018 dismissing the petitioner from service. Challenging the order dated 08.06.2018 of the second respondent dismissing him from service, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.