IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :10.06.2011 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAO and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL W.P. Nos.2549 of 2006 and 38511 of 2005 N.Raghunathan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2549 of 2006 R.Alageswaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005 vs. 1. High Court, Madras rep.by its Registrar General High Court Campus Chennai 2. Registrar General High Court Madras High Court Campus Chennai .. Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.2549 of 2006 1. High Court of Judicature at Madras represented by The Hon'ble Registrar General, Chennai – 600 104. .. Sole respondent in W.P.No.38511 of 2005 Prayer in W.P.No.2549 of 2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the respondents, quash the order of the 2nd respondent bearing Order:ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 22.12.2004 and the order of the 1st respondent bearing Order:ROC No.52/2000.Con.B2 dated 9.9.2005 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in W.P.No.38511 of 2005: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the order made in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 9.9.2005, confirming the order of dismissal passed in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 22.12.2004 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the service of Tamilnadu Judicial Ministerial Service with all consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders. For petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas in W.P.No.2549 of 2006 Mr.R.Singaravelan for Mr.N.S.Sivakumar in W.P.No.38511 of 2005 For respondents : Mr. A.Jenasenan, in both W.Ps. COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL,J.) W.P.No.2549 of 2006: The petitioner has projected this Writ Petition seeking the relief of Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records from the respondents and to quash the order of the 2nd respondent in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 22.12.2004 and the order of the 1st respondent in ROC No.52/2000.Con.B2 dated 9.9.2005 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent and resultantly to direct the respondents in reinstating the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and pass such order or directions. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Reader in High Court, Madras on 5.7.1989. He was promoted as Assistant. In March 1992, he was transferred to the Principal District Court, Dindigul wherein he worked till the year 2000. Subsequently, he was transferred to Additional Sub Court,Salem and he joined at Salem on 14.7.2000. 3. While he was serving at Salem, he received a memo from the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras enclosing the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court dated 6.6.2000, in and by which he was required to offer his explanation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Report given by the Vigilance Officer was in respect of an allegation against R.Balasubramaniam, the then Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in the matter of transfer, promotion and appointment for monetary consideration under his influence or Alageswaran, Sheristadar (writ petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005). 5. The other allegation relates to the receipt of valuable gifts at the time of inspection by R.Balasubramaniam, the then Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, (in short ADJ-Cum-CJM) Dindigul. Also the allegation is that the said ADJ- Cum-CJM received household requirements from him, Alageswaran and other staff members. Added further, the 4th allegation is that the said ADJ-Cum-CJM demanded to arrange tourist car through staff at their expenses. The 5th allegation pertains to the said ADJ-Cum-CJM misusing his official position to induce the Principal District Munsiff, to write the judgment at his command. The 6th allegation is in respect of misuse of office by Alageswaran (writ petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005). 6. The stand of the petitioner is that the very allegations do not, in any way, relate to him. He submitted his explanation on 6.12.2000 to the Vigilance Officer's Report. In his explanation, he had mentioned that allegations were not pointed towards him. He also demonstrated that the Vigilance Officer had dragged his name unnecessarily, when he had nothing to do with the allegations levelled against the said Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and Alageswaran. The petitioner takes a plea that for the transfer made in the office of the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, he had no role to play as he was working in the office of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul. Moreover, he had no role to play in any appointment or promotion and that some statements furnished by some employees were vague and without any basis. He had also stated that he had nothing to do with the so called common fund. The allegation that he supplied and serviced the Principal District Judge was also without any material. In short, he demonstrated that the allegations levelled against him had nothing to do with him inasmuch as he was working only as an Assistant. 7. The 2nd respondent/Registrar General issued a charge memo dated 24.9.2000 levelling four charges against the petitioner as per Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Out of the four charges, the enquiry officer held that the last charge was not proved. The substance of the 1st charge, relating to the petitioner, is that while he was working as an Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul, he along with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Alageswaran, then Sheristadar of Court of Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul (writ petitioner in W.P.38511 of 2005) demanded and received various amounts from the staff members on behalf of the then ADJ-Cum-CJM in regard to 52 transfer of staffs during the period from 31.3.1998 to 14.9.1999 and handed over to R.Balasubramaniam. The 2nd charge, according to the petitioner, is that he along with Alageswaran, (writ petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005) demanded and collected a sum of Rs.300/- from the last grade servant, Rs.850/- each from Assistants in two monthly instalments and Rs.500/- each from Junior Assistant in two monthly instalments in the name of common fund, in various courts in Dindigul District on behalf of R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge, Dindigul to meet out the expenses of the officer during the annual inspection for Subordinate Courts. 8. The 3rd charge levelled against the petitioner is that he along with Alageswaran (writ petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005) influenced the staff members of various courts in Dindigul District to provide valuable gifts, costly clothes and other items to R.Balasubramaniam during his inspection. 9. As regards the aforementioned charges, the petitioner furnished his explanation dated 27.11.2003 denying the charges. Later, the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court nominated the enquiry officer as per the communication dated 15.12.2003. A common domestic enquiry was held as regards the allegations levelled against R.Balasubramaniam, Alageswaran and himself. The enquiry began on 23.1.2004 and it was held on various dates. In all, 12 witnesses were examined and on his side, one witness was examined. On the side of the Department, Exs.P.1 to P.31 were marked and Exs.D.9 to D.11 were marked. The enquiry report dated 17.4.2004 was forwarded to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras together with letter dated 5.7.2004 and his comments were sought for on the enquiry report. Three charges levelled against him were held to be proved and the 4th charge was held to be not proved. He offered his comments on 21.7.2004 to the Enquiry Report and stated in detail that the findings pertaining to three charges were not proved. 10. The 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras by an order dated 22.12.2004, without considering his objections in their proper perception, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent/High Court, Madras represented by Registrar General on 20.1.2005. His appeal was rejected without considering the various grounds raised by him as per the order dated 9.9.2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. The petitioner comes out with a specific case that in regard to the 1st charge pertaining to the transfers effected by the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul during the period from 31.3.1998 to 14.9.1999, he was serving as an Assistant in the Principal District Court, Dindigul and therefore he had no knowledge about the transfers. Further more, he had not served under R.Balasubramaniam during the said period. As such, the question of R.Balasubramaniam being influenced by the petitioner does not arise. 12. The petitioner contends that in the enquiry also 12 witnesses were examined and they have deposed that they had no personal knowledge about the allegations levelled against him. Also, they did not know who had given money to him or to Alageswaran (writ petitioner in W.P.38511 of 2005) for obtaining the transfer and as a matter of fact, they could not even name one such instance. In short, most of the witnesses had not spoken anything against him in regard to the 1st charge. Even the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.10 to P.W.12 had not deposed anything against him in respect of the 1st charge. The evidence of P.W.4 was not pointed out against him since she could not give any particulars about the so called transfer effected through him for monetary consideration. From the evidence of P.W.4, it is candid that he had no personal knowledge and also he could not even name any staff who had given money for obtaining transfer through him. The transfer aspect of Karpagasundari and Pandi spoken to by P.W.4 was not the subject matter of enquiry. 13. The petitioner submits that no individual, who received transfer for monetary consideration, was examined. Added further, any person aggrieved by such alleged transfer was not also examined. In enquiry, no evidence was placed as regards the alleged demand or receiving amount for transfers in question. Therefore, there was no evidence in regard to the 1st charge. 14. The petitioner contends that the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority without any legal evidence held that the 1st charge was proved against him. The finding, as a matter of fact, recorded by the enquiry authority is that the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul had passed orders transferring 52 staff members to various courts, since they had not paid the money as bribe, as demanded, through the petitioner and Alageswaran. Accordingly, the 1st charge was held to be proved, when, in fact, there was no available legal evidence whatsoever, in this regard. 15. The petitioner pleads that there was no explanation, whatsoever, for not examining any one of the staff, who obtained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transfer allegedly by paying money or any of the aggrieved staff, who were affected by such alleged transfer. No endeavour was made to secure the staff or to obtain statement from them. Per contra, the staff, who had no connection with the issue were examined, which would unerringly point out the hollowness of the charge. 16. The petitioner's stand is to the effect that when none of the transferred employees had declined to tender evidence or statement, the question of relying upon hearsay evidence would not arise and that the so called evidence relied on by the enquiry authority could not be considered as evidence in the eye of law. 17. The petitioner submits that the 2nd charge levelled against him was also not proved in the enquiry because of the fact that the evidence of P.W.4 was quite contrary to Charge No.2, which alleges that a sum of Rs.300/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.850/- were collected from various cadres of the staff towards common fund. The evidence of P.W.4 was to the effect that a sum of Rs.10/- was ordinarily collected and Rs.20/- was collected occasionally. That apart, even though P.W.4 had deposed that collecting money and handing over the same to one Meenakkshi as per Ex.P.9 was under his instructions and Alageswaran, his signature or the signature of Alageswaran was not to be found in Ex.P.9. 18. As per the evidence of P.W.4, Ex.P.9 was handed over to Meenakshi as himself and Alageswaran were on leave on 1.3.2000. This version is factually an incorrect one. Also in the enquiry, the attendance register Ex.D.11 for 1.3.2000 proved that the petitioner himself and Alageswaran were on duty on 1.3.2000. Indeed, the said Meenakshi was not examined to prove that money under Ex.P.9 was collected as per the instructions given by the petitioner and Alageswaran. 19. The petitioner submits that the evidence of P.W.6 as regards the charge No.2 does not point out anything against him. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that a sum of Rs.850/- in 2 monthly instalments and Rs.500/- in 2 monthly instalments were collected by Central Nazir Natarajan and he heard that the petitioner and Alageswaran used to collect from Court staff to satisfy the necessity of R.Balasubramaniam, (then Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul). The individual Natarajan (Central Nazir), who was purporting to have collected the amount was not examined though he was very much available. Not even a statement was obtained from him as regards this charge. No staff members, who had alleged to have paid a sum of Rs.850/- or Rs.500/- in respect of the common fund was examined though they were very much available in service. Not even a statement was obtained from them. Thus, there was no legal evidence to point out that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner had anything to do with the alleged common fund. While that being the position, the finding of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority that the 2nd charge was proved against the petitioner is a frivolous one. 20. Coming to the aspect of 3rd charge levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner projects a plea that no documentary or oral materials were placed in the enquiry proceedings and none of the witnesses, who were examined in the enquiry deposed against him. There was absolutely no evidence in respect of the 3rd charge and in a mechancial fashion, the 3rd charge was held to be proved against the petitioner by the enquiry officer. When, in reality, it is a case of no evidence. As such, the finding of the Enquiry Authority as regards the 3rd charge is a frivolous one. 21. The petitioner was imposed with the extreme punishment of dismissal from service by the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras as per the order dated 22.12.2004. The 1st respondent/High Court, Madras without considering the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner had rejected his appeal in a summary manner as per the order dated 9.9.2005. Therefore, the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.12.2004 and the order of the 1st respondent dated 9.9.2005 are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. 22. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the charges levelled against the petitioner and the findings rendered by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority are running in different lines and hence the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the 1st charge was held to be proved. 23. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the evidence adduced by P.W.4 to P.W.6 and P.W.8 submits that their evidence had no bearing to the 1st charge and these witnesses had not mentioned from whom they came to know that transfers in issue were routed through the petitioner and Alageswaran. They had also not spoken about the names of even one staff member, who had alleged to have obtained transfer through the petitioner. Hence, the "hearsay's source" was also not disclosed. The evidence tendered by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were in the nature of no evidence and therefore the enquiry authority could have held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were unproved. 24. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the witnesses examined before the enquiry authority had spoken against the petitioner in regard to the 3rd charge. Therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there was no resemblance of any evidence in respect of 3rd charge and hence it remains unproved. 25. Advancing his arguments, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority should have held that the charges themselves were vague as there was no detail relating to the date, time, persons from whom the petitioner had demanded and received the Bribe. 26. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had committed an error in admitting the statement of one Ponraj (no more at the time of the enquiry) notwithstanding the objections of the petitioner and certainly this was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 27. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only an Assistant and had nothing to do with the allegations levelled against the Judicial Officer or against the Sheristadar. But, this was not taken into account by the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras while awarding the punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner. 28. Lastly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the 1st respondent dated 9.9.2005 is a non-speaking one because of the fact that numerous grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal were not considered and the said order is an arbitrary one, besides the charges levelled against him were held to be proved based on surmises. 29. Conversely, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the enquiry authority as well as the 1st and 2nd respondents had taken note of the overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral manner and after perusing the evidence of witnesses on record and documents and other materials had come to a right conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be proved and very rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and passed the impugned orders dated 22.12.2004 and 9.9.2005, which need not be disturbed by this Court at this distance of time. 30. It is quite appropriate for this Court to state that based on the three petitions and two telegrams C.No.118/1999-VC (ROC No.335//99-VC, 428/99-VC and 211/2000-VC) and C.No.14/2000-VC (ROC 177/2000-VC and 227/2000-VC), which were received against R.Balasubramanian, R. Alageswaran and N. Ragunathan, a detailed enquiry was framed and Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell (Judicial), Madurai Unit conducted an enquiry into the allegations and submitted its report. On the report of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Investigation Officer, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice had directed the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court to conduct a discreet enquiry into the allegations. The Special Officer, Vigilance Cell had proceeded to Dindigul on 3.5.2000, examined and recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the xerox copy of the relevant documents and he examined and recorded the statements of 13 witnesses and submitted its report dated 6.12.2000. 31. It is to be borne in mind that the petitioner by means of Roc.No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 20.7.2000 has been issued with Official Memorandum by enclosing a copy of the Report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras dated 6.6.2000, was directed to offer his explanation on the said report to the High Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum. The said report details with the discreet enquiry of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court in respect of complaint against R.Balasubramaniam, formerly Principal District Judge, Dindigul and Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and Thiru N.Ragunathan, Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul. 32. The Special Officer, Vigilance Cell of the High Court in respect of the allegation No.1 that R.Balasubramaniam while functioning as Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul had appointed, promoted and transferred the staff for monetary consideration as influenced by Thiru R.Alageswaran, Sheristadar through him he was benefitted under the caption "transfer", had stated, among other things, that R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge, Dindigul took money for transfer of the staff through Alageswaran, Sheristadar and Raghu @ Ragunathan, Assistant, another staff of the Court. It was supported by the statement of Ponraj. Further, the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell in his report had mentioned that Ponraj had stated that Alageswaran himself had told him that all the transfers would be done according to the suggestions given by him to the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Thiru. R.Balasubramaniam and if the money was paid, they would be posted at the place of their choice and if it was not paid, they would have no choice and they would be transferred to the place unwarranted. 33. The Special Officer, Vigilance Cell of High Court also, in his Report, had specified that R.Balamurugan, Junior Assistant stated that his colleagues Prema, Flora, Chandran, Sarojadevi, Anandhakrishnan who had not paid any amount to R.Balasubramaniam through Alageswaran, Sheristadar were transferred unnecessarily. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 34. Also, in the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, it was mentioned that Duraipandy, Sheristadar, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court deposed that R.Balasubramaniam, after becoming the Principal District Judge, Dindigul used to transfer the individuals, appoint and promote the individuals as suggested by Alageswaran, Sheristadar for which Alageswaran, Sheristadar used to get certain amount and used to retain one portion of the amount and rest of the amount was being paid to R.Balasubramaniam. 35. Ponraj, Head Clerk, Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, as pointed out by the Vigilance Officer in his report, also stated that on 2.2.2000, he was transferred from District Munsif Court, Dindigul. When he questioned the Sheristadar, Alageswaran told him that if the amount was paid, he will be retained in the same place or otherwise he has to join in the place where he will be posted. 36. Apart from the above, R.Rajasekaran in his statement had stated that he had not helped Alageswaran for collecting money from Amins as suggested to R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge by Alageswaran, he was transferred on 7.1.2000 to the District Munsif Court, Dindigul. According to R.Rajasekaran, R.Subbulakshmi, Karpagasundari, N.Rukman Basha, Veerapandy were transferred to Palani. According to Muthusuguna, Central Nazir, since the demand of money by Alageswaran was not complied with, both Pandy and Karpagasundari, both process servers, were transferred to Palani, though both of them belonged to Dindigul and this was known to her through Pandyammal, W/o.Pandy, who was working at Dindigul. 37. Balamurugan, Junior Assistant had stated that Alageswaran, Sheristadar demanded money from him and after he went for inspection, since he refused to pay the demanded money, he was transferred to Judicial Magistrate Court, Palani. 38. The aforesaid statements of the individuals, as mentioned in the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras dated 6.6.2000, would go to show clearly that Alageswaran demanded money from the staff for retaining them in a particular place and if they refuse, they will be transferred. Further more, money was collected by Raghu @ Raghunathan and Alageswaran, Sheristadar and was paid to District Judge, R.Balasubramaniam. Alageswaran, Sheristadar used to retain one portion as his commission and pay the rest of the amount to the Principal District Judge, R.Balasubramaniam. Enormous transfers were made accepting monetary considerations as stated by the witnesses. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 39. Therefore, the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, Madras High Court had concluded that the charge regarding transfers made by R.Balasubramaniam in the capacity of the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and Principal District Judge, Dindigul as suggested by Alageswaran, Sheristadar through whom he was getting monetary benefits, was substantiated. 40. Coming to the aspect of appointment, as per the report dated 6.6.2000 submitted by the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, Duraipandy, Sheristadar, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul had mentioned that a sum of Rs.90,000/- was paid by one Elango through Alageswaran, Sheristada and Ragunathan, Assistant for appointing Thiru Elango as Xerox Operator. It is to be pointed out that this information was conveyed to him by Madhumalar,