Petitioner challenged a second show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings alleging suppression of a criminal case. The High Court found the writ prematurely filed, ordered the petitioner to submit an explanation to the notice, and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner directed to submit explanation to the second show cause notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Orders reserved on : 28.08.2019 Order Pronounced on : 21-01-2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Writ Petition No. 14656 of 2017
K. Jeyaraj .. Petitioner
Versus
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings dated 25.04.2017 in ROC No.932/2011/B3/MB/,8363/B2 & 865/2014/VC/B2 (C No 4/2015/VC) on the file of the second respondent and the accompanying enquiry report of the third respondent dated 20.02.2017 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
ORDER
R. Subbiah, J
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the validity and/or correctness of the order dated 25.04.2017 of the second respondent, enclosing the copy of the enquiry report dated 20.02.2017 of the third respondent, on the ground that such an order dated 25.04.2017 has been passed by the second respondent without jurisdiction.
P.R.C. No. 31 of 1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Madurai would only indicate that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has been aware of the allegations made against him in the complaint. However, in the enquiry report dated 20.02.2017, the third respondent proceeded as if the petitioner was fully aware of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him. By annexing the report of the enquiry officer dated 20.02.2017, the second respondent issued the proceedings dated 25.04.2017 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the report of the enquiry officer. It is the contention of the petitioner that a person cannot be made to be vexed over and over again on the basis of vexatious complaints made by disgruntled elements to gain unlawful enrichment. When already similar anonymous complaints made against the petitioner were enquired and closed, the present attempt on the part of the respondents to impute knowledge against the petitioner towards the pending criminal proceedings is without any basis. It is in those circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court to quash the notice dated 25.04.2017 issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the report dated 20.02.2017 of the Enquiry Officer.
Court during the year 2006 and 2007 and it was subsequently accepted by the three Chief Justices of this Court. While so, the present enquiry is being held against the petitioner purportedly on the ground that the person shown in the charge sheet as A-7 is that of the petitioner, even though it was specifically stated that the name of the petitioner is K. Jayaraj, Son of R.M. Krishnasamy and not Jayaraj, Son of Krishnamoorthy. Such an explanation offered by the petitioner is also substantiated from the service records of the petitioner maintained by the respondents. Further, the investigation officer, during the pendency of the criminal proceedings has not taken any efforts to alter the charge sheet with respect to the name of the seventh accused therein. Furthermore, the case in Crime No. 418 of 1996 was registered on 13.03.1996 in which six persons were arrayed as accused. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed on 04.09.1996 in which the name of Jayaraj was included as A-7. On 10.12.1999, the petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge and till such time, he did not receive any notice or summons for his appearance in the Criminal Court. Therefore, at the time of his entering into service as a Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, the petitioner was unaware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed his involvement in the criminal case allegedly registered against him at the time of his entering into Judicial Service.
filing the final report, ought to have applied his mind and given proper description of the accused but he failed to do so. Therefore, in all probability, the accused might not have been aware of the fact that they are arrayed as accused. Therefore, in similar circumstances, it was held that the fourth respondent in that case has not deliberately suppressed the pendency of the criminal case said to be pending against him. According to the counsel for the petitioner, unless personal knowledge is attributable to the petitioner with respect to the pendency of the criminal case non-furnishing of details about the said criminal case at the time of entering into judicial service will not amount to suppression of material facts.
particulars of the witness statement and the non-supply of such statement vitiates the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. it is further stated that such a lacuna in the procedural aspect has been simply brushed by the enquiry officer while submitting his report to the second respondent. Further, neither in the charge memo nor in the anonymous petition, there was any mention made with regard to the criminal case. Therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner to respond to such anonymous petitions. Further, merely because the relatives of the petitioner were involved in the criminal case, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is fully aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings and he has wantonly evaded and avoided to participate in the same. The present disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but a harassment and therefore, this Court has to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari reported in (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 308 to contend that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India can interdict a charge memo or flawed departmental enquiry. In cases of procedurally flawed enquiries, the High Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, can go into the merits of the matter and quash the charge memo to avoid any further harassment and humiliation to the delinquent officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for allowing the writ petition as prayed for.
with respect to the earlier complaints received against the petitioner, the departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner.
that the petitioner was fully aware of the Non-bailable Warrant issued to him and also the pendency of criminal proceedings at the time of entering into Judicial Service. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the enquiry officer, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the scope of the enquiry is not as to whether the petitioner has committed the offence but whether he had knowledge or was aware of the pendency of the criminal case at the time of entering judicial service. This was clearly proved by the evidence adduced during enquiry and therefore, the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him. In a disciplinary enquiry, unlike a criminal proceedings, preponderance of probability has to be inferred and it has been clearly established in this case.
petitioner has come up with this writ petition. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 herein submits that the relief sought for in this writ petition is premature and it is liable to be dismissed.
petitioner, who was involved in a criminal case, ought not to have been appointed as a Civil Judge. The complaint was forwarded to the then Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, where the petitioner was working, to cause an enquiry and to submit a report. Accordingly, the then Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, after conducting an enquiry passed a detailed order dated Nil.11.2011 and forwarded it to the Registrar (Administration) of this Court. In his report, the then Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli has given a clean chit in favour of the petitioner by stating that the complaint was untrue and there was no merits in the complaint. It was further stated that the complaint was malicious in nature intended to tarnish the name and image of the petitioner as a Judicial Officer as also the Judiciary. Accepting the report of the then Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, the complaint dated 05.03.2007 was closed.
recorded only as K. Jeyaraj, Son of R.M. Krishnasamy, while so, it could not be inferred that the petitioner has indulged in criminal activities. The petitioner also made reference to the fact that the case in P.R.C. No. 19 of 1997 (S.C. No. 142 of 1995) which ended in acquittal of the accused on 14.03.2000 and therefore the criminal proceedings can no longer be relied on by the respondents in the departmental proceedings. Moreover, in the first information report registered on 13.03.1996 in Crime No. 418 of 1996, the name of the petitioner was not included as an accused. However, in the charge sheet dated 04.09.1996, the name of one Jayaraj was included as 7th accused. According to the petitioner, he was appointed to Judicial Service on 10.12.1999, but till such time, he has not received any notice or summons relating to the criminal case.
impute personal knowledge about the pendency of the criminal case before the appointment of the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, reference was made to the relationship between the petitioner and his relatives, who were arrayed as accused in that case and the deposition of the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was examined as PW5 before the enquiry officer, who deposed that he went to Elumalai Village on 05.12.2010 to execute the Non-bailable warrant issued to the petitioner/7th accused however, on coming to know that the petitioner is a Magistrate, he did not serve the Non-bailable Warrant. Thus, if at all any summon was sought to be served on the petitioner, an unsuccessful attempt was made only during 2010. The petitioner also justified his innocence by stating that the name of the seventh accused in the criminal case, though similar, his father's name grossly differs with that of the name of his father and therefore, he was rest contended that the case was not registered against him. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner, apprehending that he may be held guilty of the charges by the respondents based on the report of the enquiry officer and eventually imposed with the punishment by the second respondent, has come forward with this writ petition.
"The Hon'ble The Chief Justice, has directed the Registry of the High Court to observe the following guidelines while dealing with the complaints received against the Judicial Officers of the Subordinate Judiciary:
(1) The complaint making allegations against Judicial Officers of the Subordinate Judiciary should not be entertained and no action should be taken thereon, unless it is accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit and verifiable material to substantiate the allegations made therein
(2) If the complaint is not accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit and verifiable material to substantiate the allegations made therein, then a sworn affidavit and verifiable material should be called for from the complainant and thereafter, the same should be submitted before the Hon'ble Portfolio Judge.
(3) If the complaint does not meet the above requirements, the complaint should be filed/ lodged without taking any steps.
The Hon'ble The Chief Justice has further directed this Registry to communicate the above Guidelines issued to this Registry, to all the Judicial Officers of the Subordinate Judiciary.
As directed, the above guidelines are communicated for information and for bringing it to the notice of the Judicial Officers functioning under their control.
The receipt of this Official Memorandum, is required to be acknowledged forthwith."
impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner is therefore directed to submit his explanation to the second show cause notice dated 25.04.2017 issued by the second respondent in which he can raise all the points which are raised in this writ petition for consideration of the second respondent.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS - III )
// True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rsh
To
1. The High Court of Judicature at Madras
represented by its Registrar General
High Court, Chennai - 600 104
2. The Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics)
represented by its Registrar General
High Court, Chennai - 600 104
3. The Principal District Judge cum Enquiry Officer
Office of the District Court
Sivagangai District, Sivaganga.
Order in
WP No. 14656 of 2017
VSN II(CO)
CSR: 25.02.2020
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a second show cause notice in ongoing departmental proceedings before the final order is passed.
Whether the initiation of departmental proceedings violates the Chief Justice's guidelines for handling complaints against judicial officers.
Whether the petitioner withdrew from the proceedings by filing a writ petition before the departmental authority could pass a final order based on the enquiry report.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manohar Reddy vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶26
(2013 (3) Supreme Court Cases 99)
High Court of Judicature of Madras vs. R. PerachiReferred¶28
(2011) 12 SCC 137 · Who else cites this
Allahabad Bank vs. Krishna Narayan TewariReferred¶29
(2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 308
Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty SatyanarayanaReferred¶38
(2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 28
K. Jeyaraj
The High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics)
The Principal District Judge cum Enquiry Officer
R. Subbiah
C. Saravananan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
