R.Rajkumar, v. The High Court Of Judicature

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.19909 of 2016 R.Rajkumar ..

Petitioner -vs1. The High Court of Judicature at Madras rep.by the Registrar General High Court Madras 600 104

2. The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court Madras 600 104 ..

Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in Order: R.O.C.No.901/2015/VC(A)/B2 dated 16.10.2015 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to resume charge as Judicial Officer.

For Petitioner ::

Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Ravindranathan For Respondents ::

Mr.V.Vijay Shankar

ORDER

(Order of the Court was delivered by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. For the alleged misconduct, the petitioner has been kept under suspension and also an enquiry is instituted. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that without concluding the enquiry at the earliest and also the charges levelled against the petitioner do not warrant the suspension of the petitioner as such, the impugned order of suspension has to be recalled and the petitioner has to be taken on duty.

3. The statement of imputations and articles of charges framed against the petitioner, based on the surprise inspection conducted in the Special Court No.II, Jeyamkondam on 1.9.2015, reads thus:- "1. Thiru R.Rajkumar, then Special Judge No.II, Jeyamkondam was not found on the dais but was sitting on chair allotted for Bench Clerk and conducting the court without following the Dress Code during the court hours and also not maintaining the decorum of the Court, which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.

2. He had not signed in the attendance register till 11.05 A.M.

3. Verification of "A" diary register for the months of June, July and August 2015 show that each month he has disposed one batch cases."

4. As per the above imputations and articles of charges, at the most, the petitioner can press for early conclusion of the pending enquiry initiated against him and the other prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage, as the enquiry is pending consideration. Moreover, the quantum of punishment would be proposed only if the petitioner is found guilty and not otherwise. The misconduct having been found on prima facie material to place the petitioner under suspension, that does not necessarily mean that the petitioner has been penalised. At the most the petitioner can press for early conclusion of the enquiry by extending his co-operation and subject to the result of the enquiry, either he would be remedied or some other action would be taken in accordance with law.

Hence, we direct the respondents to conclude the enquiry initiated against the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the subsistence allowance is not paid during the enquiry, the same may be released within a period of fifteen days. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ Sub Asst.

To

1. The Registrar General High Court Madras 600 104

2. The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court Madras 600 104

3. The Section Officer Legal Cell, High Court, Madras-104 W.P.No.19909 of 2016 SNS (CO) kk 1/7