R VELUSAMY Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has been placed before me, as per the orders of the Hon?ble the then Chief Justice, as there is a difference of opinion between the verdicts rendered by two Honourable Judges of this Court, dated 29.4.1999.

(2.) THE necessary facts, in brief, for the disposal of the case are that Petitioner K.Velusamy, joined the Judicial Service as District Munsif on 1.12.1971, and promoted as Subordinate Judge on 10.11.1980. While he was serving as Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, during the years 1986-89, on certain allegations, three charges were framed on 23.9.1991. THE said charges were later on re-framed and on consideration, enquiry was conducted by two Hon?ble Judges of this Court, recalling the enquiry before the District Judge, Erode. P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and on the defence side two witnesses were examined. After considering the written explanation the Second Enquiry Committee, which was newly constituted, as the first Enquiry Committee did not record any finding, and after affording an opportunity of hearing, as per the direction given by the Full Court, submitted the finding that charges 1 and 2 were held not proved and charge No.3 was held to have been proved. THE relevant charge pertains to, ?demanding of a bribe of Rs.50,000 and acceptance of a bride of Rs.15,000 from Thiru K.Murugesan one of the defendants in O.S.No.442 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Erode, for passing a favourable judgment. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No.8036 of 1995, challenging the provisional conclusion taken on 26.4.1995. Meanwhile, the order of dismissal was passed on 30.6.1995 and challenging that order petitioner filed. In the Division Bench, by elaborate judgment, considering various contentions raised by counsel on either side and the case law, one, Hon?ble Judge dismissed the writ petition, whereas the other Hon?ble Judge came to the conclusion finding that there is delay beyond three years, that even if the petitioner is found guilty, the punishment of dismissal is not justified and allowed the writ petition as prayed for. Under such circumstances, as stated the matter is placed before me.

(3.) REGARDING the third point, Subramani, J., has discussed and held that as one charge, which is serious in nature, is held proved, there is no justification for imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, which is a very lenient one. On the other hand Abdul Wahab, J. taking note of the delay of three years, observed that even if the charge is found to be proved, the punishment of dismissal is not justified. Considering the opinions of the Hon?ble Judges, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the fact that the petitioner had already undergone mental agony from the year 1989 for the incident which took place in 1987, the fact that the services of the Judicial Officer in question were not extended beyond the age of 58 years, the fact that he was dismissed from service on the last date of his retirement, also the fact that in the event of imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement, he will lose monetary benefits to some extent, as per the Rules and also he will be deprived of future appointment and the fact that no complaint has been filed and the circumstances of the case in hand, the discretion so exercised in favour of the petitioner while appreciating evidence regarding reduction of punishment, it is a fit case, in my humble opinion, the ends of justice will be served if the punishment of dismissal of reduced to one of compulsory retirement.