Chennai: The Madras high court has upheld a government order, dismissing a judicial officer from service based on the decision of the administrative committee of the Madras High Court, which was subsequently approved by the full court, for misconduct.
A division bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah and C.Saravanan upheld a GO dated June 8, 2018, and dismissed a petition filed by judicial officer K.V .Mahendra Boopathi.
“The petitioner, as a judicial officer, is required to maintain absolute integrity and honesty in discharge of his functions and when the charges levelled and proved are related to his integrity in discharge of his duties, we are not in a position to appreciate the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is unwarranted and excessive,” the bench added.
The petitioner was appointed as civil judge on March 11, 2009. After necessary training he was posted as additional district munsif and thereafter, he had served in various districts and finally he was posted as judicial magistrate, Melur, Madurai district. While so, on March 22, 2016, he was served with a charge memo by the registrar general of the Madras high court under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, containing two charges relating to abusing an advocate over cellphone with filthy and unparliamentary language and also intimidated him in an inebriated mood and had conversation with an accused which was not expected from a judicial officer and against all cannons of ethics.
He offered his explanation. After examining the evidences and witnesses, the enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the report, the administrative committee had resolved to impose the punishment of dismissal from service and referred the matter to the full court for approval.
After approval was granted by the full court, the state government passed the present order. Aggrieved, the judicial officer filed the present petition.
The bench said during the course of enquiry the complainant was examined and the office assistant attached to the Judicial Magistrate Court was examined. On behalf of the petitioner /delinquent, for witnesses were examined and documents were marked. The oral as well as documentary evidence were analysed by the enquiry officer, who concluded that the two charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. The report of the enquiry officer was forwarded to the petitioner and he also submitted his explanation to the report of the enquiry officer. The report of the enquiry officer, as also the explanation offered by the petitioner were placed before the administrative committee.
The committee, upon consideration of the materials, resolved to impose the punishment of dismissal from service, which was subsequently approved by the full court.
Thus, from the stage of initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was given all adequate opportunity to defend himself. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the government was the one without any evidence.
Even otherwise, all the procedural formalities have been adhered to and therefore, the interference of this court was not warranted against the decision taken by the authorities, the bench added.
