IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:18.12.2009 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.7941 of 2009 S.Seetharaman .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Registrar General, High Court, High Court Buildings, Chennai-104. 2.The Govt. Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Govt., Home (Courts I) Department, Fort St. Geroge, Chennai-9. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the removal of petitioners from service issued under Order Ref; G.O.(D). No.791 Home (Courts I) Department, dated 04.07.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service as Civil Judge, Junior Division with all attendant benefits, seniority, promotion, increments etc. For petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, S.C. For M/s.AL.Ganthimathi For R1 : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, S.C. For Mr.V.Ayyathurai For R2 : Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar, S.G.P. O R D E R M.VENUGOPAL,J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the removal of the petitioner from service, issued under G.O.(D).No.791 Home (Courts I) Department, dated 04.07.2008 and to quash the same and to further direct the respondents to reinstate him in civil service as Civil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge, Junior Division with all attendant benefits, seniority, promotion, increments etc. 2.The second respondent, by its G.O.(D).No.791 Home (Courts I) Department dated 04.07.2008, has passed orders, inter alia, stating that it has accepted the recommendation for removing the petitioner from service and ordered the imposition of penalty of Removal from Service of the petitioner. 3.The petitioner has joined the judicial service as a Civil Judge, Junior Division through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1998 and before that, he practised as an Advocate for about 14 years. Before his removal from service, he has been serving as Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai. While he was serving as Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai,he was issued with a Charge Memo bearing C.No.122/2001/VC in Roc.469/2001/VC, dated 17.05.2006 by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras stating that he has called one G.Panneerselvam, Pudukkottai (complainant) to his room at Central Lodge, Pudukkottai where he has been staying and demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as bribe for granting decree favourably in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995 filed by his wife and on refusal to comply with the said demand, he has partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and completely dismissed the suit in O.S.No.502 of 1995, even though in both the suits, the parties are the same and the issues involved are similar and thus indulged in corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and thereby rendered himself to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973. 4.The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said charge memo and an Inquiry was initiated on the basis of the complaint of G.Panneerselvam, husband of the plaintiff in two suits in O.S.Nos.501 and 502 of 1995 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai. The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to conduct the departmental inquiry against the petitioner and he was directed to submit his report. The Inquiry Officer viz., the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur has conducted the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. 5.The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charge and an Inquiry has been conducted by the Inquiry Officer viz., the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur who has given a finding that the charges against the petitioner have been conclusively proved by the prosecution by unimpeachable evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and the unassailable documentary evidence of Ex.P.1 to P.19 adduced on the side of the complainant. The findings of the Inquiry Officer viz., the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur dated 21.06.2007 have been considered by the Honourable Administrative Committee of this Court and by enclosing a copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner was directed to submit his further representation, if any, in the above matter within 15 days from the date of High Court's Official Memorandum C.No.122/2001/VC in Roc.No.469/2001/VC. The petitioner has submitted his further representation dated 20.12.2007. The Honourable Administrative Committee by considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the further representation submitted by the petitioner, in the meeting held on 23.06.2008, has resolved to impose the punishment of removal from service and further the matter has been placed before the Honourable Full Court in the meeting held on 31.03.2008 and the Full Court has resolved to approve the minutes of the Honourable Administrative Committee and thereafter, the Government has issued the impugned order of removal from service which is assailed in this writ petition by the petitioner before this Court. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the second respondent dated 04.07.2008 imposing the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner is an arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable one in the eye of law and further that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice has no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before taking the final decision by the Honourable Administrative Committee are by the Full Court or by the Government and even the first respondent has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and moreover, the order of the second respondent also does not show any consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and except for extracting the charge, the explanation offered, the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the further representation made by the petitioner in paras 1 to 3 of the order, the same does not have any consideration of the explanation and in para 4 of the order it is mentioned that the findings of the Inquiry Officer and further representation submitted by the petitioner have been considered by the Honourable Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 26.3.2008 and it has been resolved to impose the penalty of removal from service and thereafter, the Full Court in its meeting held on 31.3.2008, had resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting of the Honourable Administrative Committee and that the first respondent has requested His Excellency, the Governor of Tamilnadu to impose the penalty of petitioner's removal from service. Likewise, in para 5 of the order, except stating that there has been a careful and independent examination of the case, nothing else is reflected in the order and therefore, the entire proceedings are against the principles of natural justice. 7. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on surmises and conjectures and the complaint of the husband of the plaintiff should have been rejected at the threshold as it has been vague, bereft of material particulars and given after a long, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unexplained delay of two months after the judgments have been rendered in the said cases and as such, the same is not worth of any credence and if such complaints lodged by unscrupulous litigants who have lost cases are entertained, no Judicial Officer will be safe and will be in a position to dispose of cases to his conscience and he will be robbed of his independence and as a matter of fact, the Subordinate Judicial Officers depend upon the High Court for protection against such unscrupulous elements and if they are not protected from such frivolous allegations by the Hon'ble High Court, then, it will be unsafe for them and admittedly, the properties involved in O.S.Nos.501 and 502 of 1995 on the file of learned Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai are different and the oral evidence and the documentary evidence marked and adduced in the cases are also different and it cannot be said that the judgment in both the suits ought to be the same. 8. Expatiating his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Inquiry Officer has misconstrued the defence of the petitioner to the effect that he has admitted the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and that the Inquiry Officer also has lost sight of the fact that it is not necessary that admission should be made only in the written statement or additional written statement and admission can be at any stage of the proceedings and in the present case, the defendant, as D.W.1 in O.S.No.501 of 1995, has categorically stated that he is not claiming any right or possession in the suit schedule property and he has no objection to the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for and in the other suit in O.S.No.502 of 1995, he has asserted his right to the property in issue and therefore, the said suit has to be necessarily considered on the basis of documentary and oral evidence on either side and the same cannot be treated on par with the suit in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and even if the reasonings assigned by the petitioner in the judgments delivered in O.S.No.501 and 502 of 1995 are incorrect, at best, it will be only an 'Error of Judgment' and the same cannot be construed as a case of probablising the complaint of charge for illegal gratification resulting in punishment of removal from service and also that the Inquiry Officer's reliance on the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5, as if they support the case of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their endeavour to prove the charge, is certainly an erroneous and unwanted one and indeed P.W.3 and P.W.4 have deposed that the petitioner has been staying at Central Lodge, Pudukottai and the observation of the Inquiry Officer that the judgment has been delivered on a particular date tallies with the date mentioned by the complainant and the date mentioned by P.W.5 as if it points out to the guilt of the petitioner is perverse and apart from the above, it is the stand of the petitioner that he has decided both the suits on merits to the best of his judicial conscience and judgment and therefore, the allegations made against him are motivated, false and frivolous one and in short, the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the subsequent order of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent in removing the petitioner from service are against all canons of law and therefore, prays for allowing the writ petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 9. In the counter filed by the first respondent, it is mentioned that the petitioner was served with the charge proceedings in High Court proceedings in C.No.122/2001/VC in ROC.No.469/2001/VC dated 17.05.2006 and he submitted his written statement of defence dated 05.09.2006 and later, the Administrative Committee of this Court has appointed the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai as Inquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry and that the Inquiry Officer has conducted the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and submitted his findings on 21.06.2007 holding that the charge against the petitioner has been proved and the findings of the Inquiry Officer has been placed before the Administrative Committee of this Court and a copy of the findings was forwarded to the petitioner, who has been required to submit his further representation, if any, and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his further representation and that the Administrative Committee of this Court has considered the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the further representation made by the petitioner and in the meeting held on 26.03.2008 it has resolved to accept the report of the Inquiry Officer and to impose the punishment of removal from service and that the matter has been placed before the Full Court in the meeting held on 31.3.2008 and the Full Court has resolved to approve the minutes of the Administrative Committee and pursuant to the said resolution, the impugned order has been issued against which the present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner and the decision taken by the Full Court as mentioned in the resolution accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer wherein the charge has been held to be proved and a a matter of fact, a full and complete opportunity has been given to the petitioner and as such, the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice etc. are not tenable and for the charge held proved, the punishment of removal from service is proper and not disproportionate and therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The Inquiry Officer/Principal District Judge, Thanjavur has formulated the following points for determination in the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner : "1) Whether the Delinquent Judicial Officer had demanded a sum of Rs.25000/- as bribe from PW1 for granting favourable judgments in O.S.No.501 & O.S.No.502/1995 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai as alleged by the prosecution? 2) Whether the Delinquent Judicial Officer had partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.501/1995 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.502/1995 on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ file of the Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai even though the issue involved in both the suits are similar in nature, on account of the refusal of PW1 to pay the bribe amount as demanded by the Delinquent Judicial Officer as alleged? 3) Whether the Delinquent Judicial Officer had been actuated by corrupt motive in delivering a judgment in favour of the defendant in O.S.No.502/1995 as alleged by PW1?" 11. The Inquiry Officer/Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, in his findings dated 21.06.2007, while answering Point Nos. 1 to 3, has, among other things, observed the following: "The Learned Presenting Officer brought to my knowledge that the Delinquent Judicial Officer has assigned different reasons to negative the claim of the plaintiff in O.S.No.502/1995 in view of PW1's refusal to pay the bribe amount demanded by him. He brought to my notice the discussion of the Delinquent Judicial Officer with regard to issue No.2 in O.S.No.502/1995 wherein the Delinquent Judicial Officer has given a finding that even though the suit property was assigned to Cyclone Refugees, the claim made by the defendant that the suit property was purchased by him from Cyclone refugees has not been disproved by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to one Mr.Kandaiya. The plaintiff Mrs.Parvathiammal (PW2) had alleged that she is the power agent of Kandaiya and in that capacity, the suit was laid for declaration of title in favour of Kandaiya and for recovery of possession and other reliefs. The judgments rendered by the Delinquent Judicial Officer in O.S.No.501/ 1995 and O.S.No.502/1995 are marked as Ex.P.12 and Ex.P17 respectively. It is evident from the judgment in O.S.No.502/1995 that the Delinquent Judicial Officer has applied different yardsticks to negative the claim of the plaintiff and to endorse the defence raised by the defendant. He has held that in Pudukkottai District, power deed is being obtained from the Sri Lankan Refugees who have been assigned properties as properties cannot be transferred in law. He further held that the plaintiff/PW2 could have obtained the suit property in that way under Ex.A2 power of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Attorney. On the other hand, he has held that the defendant has orally purchased the suit property from the very same Kandasamy for whom the suit has been laid by the plaintiff as his power agent. It is pertinent to note that the written statement filed by the defendant is bereft of any detail with regard to date of oral sale, alleged vendor and the sale consideration. Acceptance of the oral evidence of the defendant without proper plea would show that the Delinquent Judicial Officer has favoured the defendant unduly and has applied different yardsticks with regard to the sale of properties by Sri Lankan Refugees. As such the reasoning given by the Delinquent Judicial Officer to give a different finding would amply demonstrate that the Delinquent Judicial Officer had acted in a biased manner actuated by malice and corrupt practices to disallow the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the suit in O.S.No.502/1995 as PW1 had failed to pay the bribe as demanded by him. The different yardsticks applied by the Delinquent Judicial Officer with regard to some set of facts while deciding the similar issues in the two suits which were simultaneously tried between the same parties would reveal that the Delinquent Judicial Officer was biased against PW1 due to PW1's refusal to pay the bribe demanded by him. Evidence of PW1 is unimpeachable. Hence, the conduct of the Delinquent Judicial Officer and different yardsticks applied by him to decide the two suits in O.S.No.501/1995 and 502/ 1995 only probabilise the version of PW1 that the Delinquent Judicial Officer has dismissed the suit in O.S.No.502/1995 actuated by corrupt motive upon PW1's refusal to pay the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- demanded by Delinquent Judicial Officer prior to the pronouncement of judgments in both the suits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Union of India vs. A.N.Saxena 1992-3 SCC page 124 and Union of India vs. K.K.Dhawan 1993-2 SCC Page 56 that the disciplinary action has to be initiated in respect of a judicial or a quasi-judicial action under the following circumstances: 1) Where the Judicial Officer has conducted in a manner as would effect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or devotion to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ duty; 2) That there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty. 3) That if he has acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; 4) That if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; and 5) That if he had been actuated by corrupt motive. In this case, it has been proved by the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the different reasons given by the Delinquent Judicial Officer in his Judgment cited above that he has acted with a malafide intention to favour the defendant unduly, actuated by corrupt motive. The law is well settled that strict rule of Evidence Act is not applicable to the departmental proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in A.I.R.1997 Supreme Court Page 1512- State of Haryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh = Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S.Gandhi reported in 1991 SCC-2 page 716. So also the doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt has no application to a departmental proceedings is well settled and to that effect the prosecution relied on a judgment reported in AIR 1997 (SC) page 2286 High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Udayasingh. In this case, admittedly PW1 has not spoken to the date of demand of the alleged bribe by the Delinquent Judicial Officer. But he has categorically stated that it was prior to the date of pronouncement of judgments. Therefore, he has stated that before 28.03.2001, he met the Delinquent Judicial Officer in Central Lodge at Pudukkottai. PW1's evidence coupled with the malafide intention on the part of Delinquent Judicial Office which is manifest from his judgments where he had applied different yardsticks to the similar set of facts amply corroborated the evidence of PW1 with regard to demand of bribe by the Delinquent Judicial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officer prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the said suits on 30.03.2001. The non- mentioning of date of demand and delay in preferring the complaint will not in any way weaken the case of the prosecution as in a case of this nature normally the parties will be reluctant to prefer a complaint immediately as Judges are held in high esteem in society for dispensing the divine duty of adjudication delegated to them. In the light of the above discussions and reasons, I hold that the charges framed against the Delinquent Judicial Officer is conclusively proved by the prosecution by unimpeachable evidence of PW1 to PW5 and the unassailable documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 adduced on the side of the complainant and all the points are answered accordingly." 12. We are aware that the Court can interfere with the conduct of Domestic Enquiry only in cases of (1) no evidence(2) procedural irregularity (3) malafide. As a matter of fact, the forensic ability of the Enquiry Officer in assessing probative value of evidence adduced during the enquiry and to show if they have any bearing with the charges levelled against the charged Officer is sine qua non of the purpose of holding an enquiry. At this juncture, we feel it apt to mention that as against the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner, unlike any other departments, there is no appeal remedy available to him and the only course open for him is to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above situation, we will be failing in our duty, if we do not assess the evidence and other aspects of the case in entirety, so as to meet the ends of justice. In these circumstances, we have to assess the entire factual gamut of the case. 13. In Ex.P.1-complaint dated 23.05.2001 addressed to the Special Officer (Vigilance Cell), High Court, Chennai, P.W.1- Panneerselvam of Tirukokarnam has, inter alia, stated that since he has come from Srilanka as a refugee and because of the fact that he is not fully acquainted with any one in the local area, finally he has filed two suits O.S.No.501 and 502 of 1995 and before the pronouncement of judgments in O.S.No.501 and 502 of 1995 the Judge Seetharaman has contacted him through a person with whom he has not been acquainted with for meeting the Judge at his room in Central Lodge at 10.00 p.m. During night and initially he has been hesitant and surprised and inspite of the same, he has gone to the place at the specified time and the Judge Seetharaman alone has been there and he demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- from him and that he informed the Judge that the case is in his favour and if really the Judge has studied then he can deliver a fair judgment and that he informed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge, he will not pay any amount but for that the Judge informed him that he can do whatever he likes and that he has immediately come out of his room and later he has deferred the judgment and finally on 30.03.2001 he has delivered a favourable judgment in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and dismissed the suit O.S.No.502 of 1995 and even though two properties are like properties, for one property a favourable judgment and in respect of another property an unfavourable judgment has been delivered and inspite of his friends compelling him to complaint the matter to the Vigilance against the Judge Seetharaman, he has not done so and therefore, as requested the Special Officer to enquire into the matter and to take necessary action against Mr.Seetharaman, Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai. 14. The complainant Ponnerselvam(P.W.1) in his statement before the Vigilance Cell, High Court, Chennai, has inter alia stated that before the deliverance of Judgments in both suits, Mr.Seetharaman, Judge through an unacquainted person has asked him to come and meet at the Judge's room in Central Lodge, Pudukkottai after 10.00 p.m., during night where he has been staying and on hearing the same though he has been surprised and in a state of hesitation when he has gone to the Central Lodge at Pudukkottai where the Judge has been staying at the specified time and at that time, the Judge alone was there and the Judge Seetharaman has demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- from him for delivering Judgments in favour of his wife in the suits viz., O.S.No.501 of 1995 and 502 of 1995 filed by her and to this, he has replied to the Judge stating that this case is in his favour and if really, the Judge is a learned individual he can deliver fair Judgments and further ,that he will not