Madras HC against dishonest judicial officer
Article 235 of the Constitution gives the high court absolute control over subordinate courts
By : p.arul
Update: 2014-10-30 04:55 GMT
Chennai: While dismissing a writ petition from R. M. Jayalakshmi, a division bench comprising Justice Satish K. Agnihotri and Justice K.K. Sasidharan, said “As observed by the Supreme Court in the Rajendra Singh Verma, case the high court forms an opinion about the integrity of a judicial officer based on substance, matter or information. There is no question of keeping such an officer with doubtful integrity in judicial service.”
The petitioner was appointed as judicial magistrate in 1991 and promoted as subordinate judge in 2004. She was posted at Krishnagiri and thereafter at Mahe and Ariyalur.
While so, the high court examined her case under Fundamental Rules 56 in April 2009 and arrived at a conclusion that she was not fit to continue in the service. The full court passed a resolution that it was just and necessary in public interest to compulsorily retire her from service under the rule. Based on the recommendation the government, it passed the G.O. dated May 8 2009.
The petitioner filed a review petition before the government. The review petition dated June 12, 2009, was rejected by the government by order dated February 26, 2010. In the writ petition, she challenged both the orders.
She contended that compulsorily retiring her from service was in the nature of punishment and imposed without giving an opportunity to submit her explanation. The government mechanically rejected the review petition. Hence, she sought quashing both the government orders and to reinstate her into service with all consequential benefits.
The registrar general replied that the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner was unassailable. The bench said Article 235 of the Constitution gives the high court absolute control over subordinate courts. The high court is the appropriate authority to review the case of judicial officers to continue them in service. The recommendation made by the high court is binding on the government.
While dismissing the writ petition, the bench said the case of the petitioner was examined at various levels. Public interest is the paramount consideration. As observed by the SC, corrupt and dead wood deserves to be dispensed with.