R.NAVAMURTHY Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash the order in G.O. (2D) No.305, Home (Courts-I) Department dated 04.10.2017 on the file of the first respondent and the subsequent order passed by the second respondent in notification No.197/2017 dated 14.11.2017 with a consequential direction to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service as Senior Civil Judge with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was selected and appointed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and after initial training, he was posted as District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Kamudhi, Ramanathapuram District. He joined the said post on 10.12.1999. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Subordinate Judge and on such promotion, he was posted as Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai on 19.01.2011. The petitioner was thereafter transferred and posted in various Districts. While the petitioner was serving as Judicial Officer/Chairman, Taxation Appeals Tribunal, Tiruppur, an Official Memorandum dated 05.02.2014 was issued to him by the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court listing out the various Motor Accident Cases in which he failed to pass award or the cases in which he has passed exorbitant compensation amount than the one sought for by the claimant and also cited the Transfer Applications filed by Insurance Companies before the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli seeking transfer of some Motor Accident Claim Cases pending on the file of the petitioner to any other Court within Tiruchirapalli. By citing the particulars of the cases in which the petitioner failed to discharge his judicial functions properly, he was called upon to submit his explanation. Accordingly, an explanation dated 19.03.2014 was submitted by the petitioner denying the averments made in the Official Memorandum inter alia stating that he had discharged his judicial functions in accordance with Law. It was also stated by the petitioner that he had awarded more compensation in certain deserving cases upon adjudicating the facts of each case. At the same time, in a number of cases, he has awarded lesser amount than the one claimed by the claimant by taking note of the nature of injuries sustained in the accident.

(3.) Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, a charge memorandum dated 26.02.2015 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The allegations cited in the Official Memorandum 05.02.2014 issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court were the basis for issuing the charge memo and the charges related to the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner in discharging his judicial functions properly in awarding compensation amount in Motor Accident Cases. On receipt of the charge memorandum, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.03.2015 denying the charges. According to the petitioner, in 16 cases, on the basis of the material evidence made available, he arrived at a higher compensation amount based on the various principles enunciated by the High Court, Madras as well as the Supreme Court. Further, such higher compensation amount has been awarded by following the norms and making meticulous calculation. It is also submitted that when several counsels represented the Insurance Companies, only two advocates appearing for the Insurance Company have filed Transfer Applications and even in those applications, there is no allegation of any corrupt practice against the petitioner nor have they alleged any favouritism shown in favour of the claimants in those cases.