IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.10.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN Writ Petition No.16933 of 2009 P.Shanmugam .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras High Court, Chennai. 2. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Govt. Home (Courts) Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo issued by him in Order C.No.66/2005/2005-VC (In ROC No.555/2005/2005/VC dated 20.1.2009 and Order C.No.26/2005/VC (in Roc.No.259/2005/VC vide ROC No.803/2003/VC dated 20.1.2009 and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents:Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Jenasenan for R1 Mr.G.Desinghu, Spl.Govt. Pleader for R2. --- O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.) The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records from the first respondent connected with the impugned charge memo in C.No.66/2005/2005-VC (in ROC No.555/2005/2005/VC dated 20.01.2009 and order C.No.26/2005/VC (in Roc.No.259/2005/VC vide ROC No.803/2003/VC dated 20.1.2009, quash the same and grant such other reliefs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The order, which the petitioner seeks to impugn in this writ petition, is a charge memo and as many as six charges have been levelled against the petitioner. At the relevant point of time, with regard to which charges have been framed against the petitioner, he was functioning as District Judge, Nilgris at Udhagamandalam. One of the charges relates to demand of Rs.5 lakhs as bribe from one of the persons by name Naharmal Bafna, who was arrayed as first accused in Sessions Case No.25 of 2002. Even the other charges were serious in nature. 3. According to the petitioner, earlier he was allowed to retire at the age of 58 years, that when he approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16317 of 2007 challenging the order dated 25.01.2007 retiring him from service at the age of 58 without granting extension for two years, a Division Bench in its order dated 22.07.2008, examined the past records of the petitioner and found his service records as an unblemished one, that based on the said order of the Division Bench, the petitioner was re-employed by order dated 14.10.2008 and in the circumstances, it would be travesty of justice, if the petitioner were to face the enquiry in relation to the charges now levelled against him in the impugned charge memo dated 20.01.2009. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the first respondent however brought to our notice that the very same charge memo dated 20.01.2009 was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.1633 of 2009 and that the said writ petition was unconditionally withdrawn by the petitioner by making an endorsement in the writ petition and that based upon the said endorsement, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 28.01.2009. The learned senior counsel would therefore contend that the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate the very same issue once over again in this writ petition. 5. The learned senior standing counsel appearing for the first respondent is well justified in making such a submission, inasmuch as we also find in the order dated 28.01.2009, no reservation has been made by the petitioner to re-agitate the issue under any circumstances. Therefore, the petitioner once having chosen to challenge the very same impugned order earlier and decided to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally, the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issue. 6. In any event, on a perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the impugned charge memo, we find that in view of the seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner, by relying upon the earlier order dated 22.07.2008 in W.P.No.16317 of 2007, which writ petition was concerned with the non-extension of the petitioner's service beyond 58 years, the impugned charge memo cannot be quashed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ without being examined in detail. We, therefore, do not wish to go into the details of the charges or other aspects relating to the said issue. We are however convinced that the petitioner should only come out unscathed by participating in the enquiry, which is stated to have already commenced and it is being enquired by a learned sitting Judge of this Court. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner will have to participate in the enquiry proceedings. It is contended that after the petitioner was being allowed to superannuate from service on 31.10.2009 without prejudice to the charge memo proceedings initiated against him, he has not been paid the provisional pension. 7. While dismissing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry, we only request the learned Judge holding the enquiry to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. The first respondent shall also consider the grievance of the petitioner relating to payment of provisional pension and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ATR To 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras High Court, Chennai. 2.The Section Officer, Legal Cell, High Court,Madras. 3. The Secretary to Govt. State of Tamil Nadu Home (Courts) Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9. +1cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate Sr 76744 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 76389 NSM(CO) km/12.11. W.P.No.16933 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/