S.Seetharaman v. The Registrar General, High Court, High Court Buildings, Chennai-104

petitioner was directed to submit his further representation, ifany, in the above matter within 15 days from the date of HighCourt's Official Memorandum C.No.122/2001/VC in Roc.No.469/2001/VC.The petitioner has submitted his further representation dated20.12.2007. The Honourable Administrative Committee by consideringthe findings of the Inquiry Officer and the further representationsubmitted by the petitioner, in the meeting held on 23.06.2008, hasresolved to impose the punishment of removal from service andfurther the matter has been placed before the Honourable Full Courtin the meeting held on 31.03.2008 and the Full Court has resolved toapprove the minutes of the Honourable Administrative Committee andthereafter, the Government has issued the impugned order of removalfrom service which is assailed in this writ petition by thepetitioner before this Court.6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends thatthe order of the second respondent dated 04.07.2008 imposing thepenalty of removal from service on the petitioner is an arbitrary,illegal and unsustainable one in the eye of law and further that theenquiry proceedings are vitiated for violation of the principles ofnatural justice has no opportunity of hearing has been given to thepetitioner before taking the final decision by the HonourableAdministrative Committee are by the Full Court or by the Governmentand even the first respondent has not given any opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner and moreover, the order of the secondrespondent also does not show any consideration of the explanationsubmitted by the petitioner and except for extracting the charge,the explanation offered, the findings of the Inquiry Officer and thefurther representation made by the petitioner in paras 1 to 3 of theorder, the same does not have any consideration of the explanationand in para 4 of the order it is mentioned that the findings of theInquiry Officer and further representation submitted by thepetitioner have been considered by the Honourable AdministrativeCommittee in its meeting held on 26.3.2008 and it has been resolvedto impose the penalty of removal from service and thereafter, theFull Court in its meeting held on 31.3.2008, had resolved to approvethe minutes of the meeting of the Honourable AdministrativeCommittee and that the first respondent has requested HisExcellency, the Governor of Tamilnadu to impose the penalty ofpetitioner's removal from service. Likewise, in para 5 of the order,except stating that there has been a careful and independentexamination of the case, nothing else is reflected in the order andtherefore, the entire proceedings are against the principles ofnatural justice.7. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based onsurmises and conjectures and the complaint of the husband of theplaintiff should have been rejected at the threshold as it has beenvague, bereft of material particulars and given after a long, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unexplained delay of two months after the judgments have beenrendered in the said cases and as such, the same is not worth of anycredence and if such complaints lodged by unscrupulous litigants whohave lost cases are entertained, no Judicial Officer will be safeand will be in a position to dispose of cases to his conscience andhe will be robbed of his independence and as a matter of fact, theSubordinate Judicial Officers depend upon the High Court forprotection against such unscrupulous elements and if they are notprotected from such frivolous allegations by the Hon'ble High Court,then, it will be unsafe for them and admittedly, the propertiesinvolved in O.S.Nos.501 and 502 of 1995 on the file of learnedAdditional District Munsif, Pudukkottai are different and the oralevidence and the documentary evidence marked and adduced in thecases are also different and it cannot be said that the judgment inboth the suits ought to be the same.8. Expatiating his submissions, the learned senior counsel forthe petitioner submits that the Inquiry Officer has misconstrued thedefence of the petitioner to the effect that he has admitted thecase of the plaintiff in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and that the InquiryOfficer also has lost sight of the fact that it is not necessarythat admission should be made only in the written statement oradditional written statement and admission can be at any stage ofthe proceedings and in the present case, the defendant, as D.W.1 inO.S.No.501 of 1995, has categorically stated that he is not claimingany right or possession in the suit schedule property and he has noobjection to the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiff asprayed for and in the other suit in O.S.No.502 of 1995, he hasasserted his right to the property in issue and therefore, the saidsuit has to be necessarily considered on the basis of documentaryand oral evidence on either side and the same cannot be treated onpar with the suit in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and even if the reasoningsassigned by the petitioner in the judgments delivered in O.S.No.501and 502 of 1995 are incorrect, at best, it will be only an 'Error ofJudgment' and the same cannot be construed as a case of probablisingthe complaint of charge for illegal gratification resulting inpunishment of removal from service and also that the InquiryOfficer's reliance on the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5, as if theysupport the case of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their endeavour to prove thecharge, is certainly an erroneous and unwanted one and indeed P.W.3and P.W.4 have deposed that the petitioner has been staying atCentral Lodge, Pudukottai and the observation of the Inquiry Officerthat the judgment has been delivered on a particular date tallieswith the date mentioned by the complainant and the date mentioned byP.W.5 as if it points out to the guilt of the petitioner is perverseand apart from the above, it is the stand of the petitioner that hehas decided both the suits on merits to the best of his judicialconscience and judgment and therefore, the allegations made againsthim are motivated, false and frivolous one and in short, thefindings of the Inquiry Officer and the subsequent order of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent in removing the petitioner from service areagainst all canons of law and therefore, prays for allowing the writpetition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.9. In the counter filed by the first respondent, it ismentioned that the petitioner was served with the chargeproceedings in High Court proceedings in C.No.122/2001/VC inROC.No.469/2001/VC dated 17.05.2006 and he submitted his writtenstatement of defence dated 05.09.2006 and later, the AdministrativeCommittee of this Court has appointed the Principal District Judge,Pudukkottai as Inquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry andthat the Inquiry Officer has conducted the departmental enquiryagainst the petitioner and submitted his findings on 21.06.2007holding that the charge against the petitioner has been proved andthe findings of the Inquiry Officer has been placed before theAdministrative Committee of this Court and a copy of the findingswas forwarded to the petitioner, who has been required to submit hisfurther representation, if any, and accordingly, the petitioner hassubmitted his further representation and that the AdministrativeCommittee of this Court has considered the findings of the InquiryOfficer and the further representation made by the petitioner and inthe meeting held on 26.03.2008 it has resolved to accept the reportof the Inquiry Officer and to impose the punishment of removal fromservice and that the matter has been placed before the Full Court inthe meeting held on 31.3.2008 and the Full Court has resolved toapprove the minutes of the Administrative Committee and pursuant tothe said resolution, the impugned order has been issued againstwhich the present writ petition has been filed by the writpetitioner and the decision taken by the Full Court as mentioned inthe resolution accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer whereinthe charge has been held to be proved and a a matter of fact, a fulland complete opportunity has been given to the petitioner and assuch, the allegation of violation of principles of natural justiceetc. are not tenable and for the charge held proved, the punishmentof removal from service is proper and not disproportionate andtherefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.10. The Inquiry Officer/Principal District Judge, Thanjavur hasformulated the following points for determination in thedepartmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner :"1) Whether the Delinquent Judicial Officerhad demanded a sum of Rs.25000/- as bribe fromPW1 for granting favourable judgments inO.S.No.501 & O.S.No.502/1995 on the file ofAdditional District Munsif, Pudukkottai asalleged by the prosecution?2) Whether the Delinquent Judicial Officerhad partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.501/1995and 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 inboth the suits are similar in nature, on accountof the refusal of PW1 to pay the bribe amount asdemanded by the Delinquent Judicial Officer asalleged?3) Whether the Delinquent Judicial Officerhad been actuated by corrupt motive in deliveringa judgment in favour of the defendant inO.S.No.502/1995 as alleged by PW1?"11. The Inquiry Officer/Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, inhis 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 myknowledge that the Delinquent Judicial Officerhas assigned different reasons to negative theclaim of the plaintiff in O.S.No.502/1995 inview of PW1's refusal to pay the bribe amountdemanded by him. He brought to my notice thediscussion of the Delinquent Judicial Officerwith regard to issue No.2 in O.S.No.502/1995wherein the Delinquent Judicial Officer hasgiven a finding that even though the suitproperty was assigned to Cyclone Refugees, theclaim made by the defendant that the suitproperty was purchased by him from Cyclonerefugees has not been disproved by theplaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the suitproperty belongs to one Mr.Kandaiya. Theplaintiff Mrs.Parvathiammal (PW2) had allegedthat she is the power agent of Kandaiya and inthat capacity, the suit was laid for declarationof title in favour of Kandaiya and for recoveryof possession and other reliefs. The judgmentsrendered by the Delinquent Judicial Officer inO.S.No.501/ 1995 and O.S.No.502/1995 are markedas Ex.P.12 and Ex.P17 respectively. It isevident from the judgment in O.S.No.502/1995that the Delinquent Judicial Officer has applieddifferent yardsticks to negative the claim ofthe plaintiff and to endorse the defence raisedby the defendant. He has held that inPudukkottai District, power deed is beingobtained from the Sri Lankan Refugees who havebeen assigned properties as properties cannot betransferred in law. He further held that theplaintiff/PW2 could have obtained the suitproperty in that way under Ex.A2 power of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Attorney. On the other hand, he has held thatthe defendant has orally purchased the suitproperty from the very same Kandasamy for whomthe suit has been laid by the plaintiff as hispower agent. It is pertinent to note that thewritten statement filed by the defendant isbereft of any detail with regard to date of oralsale, alleged vendor and the sale consideration.Acceptance of the oral evidence of the defendantwithout proper plea would show that theDelinquent Judicial Officer has favoured thedefendant unduly and has applied differentyardsticks with regard to the sale of propertiesby Sri Lankan Refugees. As such the reasoninggiven by the Delinquent Judicial Officer to givea different finding would amply demonstrate thatthe Delinquent Judicial Officer had acted in abiased manner actuated by malice and corruptpractices to disallow the claim of the plaintiffin respect of the suit in O.S.No.502/1995 as PW1had failed to pay the bribe as demanded by him.The different yardsticks applied by theDelinquent Judicial Officer with regard to someset of facts while deciding the similar issuesin the two suits which were simultaneously triedbetween the same parties would reveal that theDelinquent Judicial Officer was biased againstPW1 due to PW1's refusal to pay the bribedemanded by him. Evidence of PW1 isunimpeachable. Hence, the conduct of theDelinquent Judicial Officer and differentyardsticks applied by him to decide the twosuits in O.S.No.501/1995 and 502/ 1995 onlyprobabilise the version of PW1 that theDelinquent Judicial Officer has dismissed thesuit in O.S.No.502/1995 actuated by corruptmotive upon PW1's refusal to pay the bribeamount of Rs.25,000/- demanded by DelinquentJudicial Officer prior to the pronouncement ofjudgments in both the suits.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Unionof India vs. A.N.Saxena 1992-3 SCC page 124 andUnion of India vs. K.K.Dhawan 1993-2 SCC Page 56that the disciplinary action has to be initiatedin respect of a judicial or a quasi-judicialaction under the following circumstances:1) Where the JudicialOfficer has conducted in a manner aswould effect on his reputation orintegrity or good faith or devotion to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ duty;2) That there is prima faciematerial to show recklessness ormisconduct in the discharge of hisduty.3) That if he has actednegligently or that he omitted theprescribed conditions which areessential for the exercise of thestatutory powers;4) That if he had acted inorder to unduly favour a party; and 5) That if he had beenactuated by corrupt motive.In this case, it has been proved by theoral evidence of PW1 coupled with the differentreasons given by the Delinquent Judicial Officerin his Judgment cited above that he has actedwith a malafide intention to favour thedefendant unduly, actuated by corrupt motive.The law is well settled that strict rule ofEvidence Act is not applicable to thedepartmental proceedings as held by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in a decision reported inA.I.R.1997 Supreme Court Page 1512- State ofHaryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh =Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and HigherSecondary Education Vs. K.S.Gandhi reported in1991 SCC-2 page 716.So also the doctrine of proof beyondreasonable doubt has no application to adepartmental proceedings is well settled and tothat effect the prosecution relied on a judgmentreported in AIR 1997 (SC) page 2286 High Courtof Judicature at Bombay Vs. Udayasingh.In this case, admittedly PW1 has not spokento the date of demand of the alleged bribe bythe Delinquent Judicial Officer. But he hascategorically stated that it was prior to thedate of pronouncement of judgments. Therefore,he has stated that before 28.03.2001, he met theDelinquent Judicial Officer in Central Lodge atPudukkottai. PW1's evidence coupled with themalafide intention on the part of DelinquentJudicial Office which is manifest from hisjudgments where he had applied differentyardsticks to the similar set of facts amplycorroborated the evidence of PW1 with regard todemand of bribe by the Delinquent Judicial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officer prior to the pronouncement of judgmentin the said suits on 30.03.2001. The non-mentioning of date of demand and delay inpreferring the complaint will not in any wayweaken the case of the prosecution as in a caseof this nature normally the parties will bereluctant to prefer a complaint immediately asJudges are held in high esteem in society fordispensing the divine duty of adjudicationdelegated to them. In the light of the abovediscussions and reasons, I hold that the chargesframed against the Delinquent Judicial Officeris conclusively proved by the prosecution byunimpeachable evidence of PW1 to PW5 and theunassailable documentary evidence of Ex.P1 toEx.P19 adduced on the side of the complainantand all the points are answered accordingly."12. We are aware that the Court can interfere with the conductof Domestic Enquiry only in cases of (1) no evidence(2) proceduralirregularity (3) malafide. As a matter of fact, the forensic abilityof the Enquiry Officer in assessing probative value of evidenceadduced during the enquiry and to show if they have any bearing withthe charges levelled against the charged Officer is sine qua non ofthe purpose of holding an enquiry. At this juncture, we feel it aptto mention that as against the order of removal from service passedagainst the petitioner, unlike any other departments, there is noappeal remedy available to him and the only course open for him isto file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. In view of the above situation, we will be failing in ourduty, if we do not assess the evidence and other aspects of the casein entirety, so as to meet the ends of justice. In thesecircumstances, we have to assess the entire factual gamut of thecase.13. In Ex.P.1-complaint dated 23.05.2001 addressed to theSpecial Officer (Vigilance Cell), High Court, Chennai, P.W.1-Panneerselvam of Tirukokarnam has, inter alia, stated that since hehas come from Srilanka as a refugee and because of the fact that heis not fully acquainted with any one in the local area, finally hehas filed two suits O.S.No.501 and 502 of 1995 and before thepronouncement of judgments in O.S.No.501 and 502 of 1995 the JudgeSeetharaman has contacted him through a person with whom he has notbeen acquainted with for meeting the Judge at his room in CentralLodge at 10.00 p.m. During night and initially he has been hesitantand surprised and inspite of the same, he has gone to the place atthe specified time and the Judge Seetharaman alone has been thereand he demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- from him and that he informedthe Judge that the case is in his favour and if really the Judge hasstudied 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 informedhim that he can do whatever he likes and that he has immediatelycome out of his room and later he has deferred the judgment andfinally on 30.03.2001 he has delivered a favourable judgment inO.S.No.501 of 1995 and dismissed the suit O.S.No.502 of 1995 andeven though two properties are like properties, for one property afavourable judgment and in respect of another property anunfavourable judgment has been delivered and inspite of his friendscompelling him to complaint the matter to the Vigilance against theJudge Seetharaman, he has not done so and therefore, as requestedthe Special Officer to enquire into the matter and to take necessaryaction against Mr.Seetharaman, Additional District Munsif,Pudukkottai.14. The complainant Ponnerselvam(P.W.1) in his statement beforethe Vigilance Cell, High Court, Chennai, has inter alia stated thatbefore the deliverance of Judgments in both suits, Mr.Seetharaman,Judge through an unacquainted person has asked him to come and meetat the Judge's room in Central Lodge, Pudukkottai after 10.00 p.m.,during night where he has been staying and on hearing the samethough he has been surprised and in a state of hesitation when hehas gone to the Central Lodge at Pudukkottai where the Judge hasbeen staying at the specified time and at that time, the Judge alonewas there and the Judge Seetharaman has demanded a sum ofRs.25,000/- from him for delivering Judgments in favour of his wifein the suits viz., O.S.No.501 of 1995 and 502 of 1995 filed by herand to this, he has replied to the Judge stating that this case isin his favour and if really, the Judge is a learned individual hecan deliver fair Judgments and further ,that he will not tenderany amount and for his reply, the Judge has informed that ' he is aJudge and can do whatever he likes and that he immediately is comeout of his room and Judge has deferred the Judgment and finally on30.3.2001, he has delivered the favourable Judgment in O.S.No.501 of1995 and unfavourable Judgment in O.S.No.502 of 1995 and forlodging a complaint, the reason for the delay is due to that he hascome to know belatedly through his friends that there is a VigilanceCell for Judges and also that he has informed his wife that theJudge Mr.Seetharaman has demanded money from him.15. The wife of the complainant Mrs.Parvathy(P.W.2) in herstatement before the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court,Chennai has stated that her husband is running the medical shopbusiness and like them one Kandaiah, s/o Muniyandi and Kandan,s/oSadaiyan are also refugees from Srilanka to India and they residednear their place and the Government of India have given them moneyto each of them to purchase three cents of land at Natham PannaiVillage and also loan has been granted to construct a house and bothof them have constructed a tiled house side by side and since bothof them have no income their two families have decided to go to thetea plantation at Nilgiris for doing job there, they have come to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her husband in the year 1991 and they asked her husband to givemoney to them by keeping their houses and to take the money thereof and when her husband has informed this to her and she has agreedfor the same and in the year 1991, she has given money to them andgot the power deed executed in her favour and later the house hasbeen let out to Subiraj and since he is not paying the rentproperly, she has filed two cases viz., O.S.No.501 of 1995 andO.S.No.502 of 1995 against him and that her husband has beenlooking after the legal proceedings and her husband has informed herthat the trial Judge who has conducted the cases in order to deliverfavourable Judgment in their two cases has demanded a sum ofRs.25,000/- one day prior to the pronouncement of the Judgment andfurther her husband has informed her that he has refused to pay themoney demanded by the Judge and out of two cases, one case has endedin their favour and other case has gone against them and her mindhas become sad because of the fact that proper Judgment has not beenrendered to them. 16.. The Office Assistant(P.W.3) in his statement before theSpecial Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras has stated thatpresently he is serving as Office Assistant in the AdditionalDistrict Munsif Court, Pudukkottai and per that for three months, hehas served at Pudukkottai ,Fast Track Court and before that heworked in Arantangi Munsif Court for ten months and before servingat Arantangi for two years, he served as Office Assistant in theAdditional District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai where Mr.Seetharamanserved as an Additional District Munsif and at first he has stayedin the chamber of the Court and then at the instance of PrincipalDistrict Munsif Sam Andrews, who castigated the Munsif, theAdditional District Munsif, Seetharaman has taken a room in theCentral Lodge and was staying there and in the lodge his room was inthe upstairs portion and Officer alone has been staying there andtill he was transferred to Paramakudi Court, he stayed at CentralLodge and further daily at 3.00p.m., he used to go to the room ofthe Judge in the lodge for the purpose of cleaning and keep thearticles properly and when he used to go to the room of the Judge atCentral Lodge, at that time, the key of the room will be handed overby the Officer to him and after finishing his work in the room, hewill be handed over the key of the room to the Judge and anotherOffice Assistant Mariappan was also doing the work for the Judge andhe will not staying during night time and that the Officer hasinformed him and Mariappan that they need not come to the roomduring night time.17. The Office Assistant, Mariappan(P.W.4) in his statementbefore the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras hasstated that presently he has been serving as an Office Assistant atthe Sub Court, Pudukottai and before that for eight months, heserved in Pudukottai Principal District Munsif Court and before thatfrom December 1999 , he served at the Additional District Munsif https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court as Office Assistant and at that time, Mr.Seetharaman was theAdditional District Munsif at the Additional District Munsif Court,Pudukottai and he is an unmarried person and at first the Judge hasbeen staying in the Court chamber, later in the room of the upstairsof Central Lodge, he has been staying alone and mostly, the Judgewill not ask him to do the works in the room since he is anhandicapped person and another Office Assistant Palanivel will go tothe room of the Central Lodge and returned after cleaning and oneday, he has gone to the room along with Office Assistant Palanivelto clean the cobweb and during lunch time, he used to purchase themeals for the Judge from the opposite hotel and the Judge will notdirect both of them to stay in the lodge and to do the night dutyand they will also not go for the night duty and since his righthand is disabled, he used to sign in his left hand.18. Thiru Abdul Hameed,(Junior Assistant -cum- Court Officer)(P.W.5) of the Additional District Munsif Court, Pudukottai in hisstatement before the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court,Madras has stated that he has been serving as Bench Clerk in theAdditional District Munsif Court, Pudukottai from 28.4.1998 and thatThiru Seetharaman served as Additional District Munsif in theirCourt from 1.3.1998 to 30.4.2001 and during that period, he hasdelivered Judgment in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995 on30.3.2001 and that he is handing over the xerox copy of the amendedplaint, defendant's written statement, additional writtenstatement, copy of Judgment delivered by the Judge and notes paperin the two cases and the orders passed thereon.19. The Special Officer, Vigilance cell, High Court, Madras, onconsideration of oral and documentary evidence has come to the primafacie conclusion that the allegations levelled against the writpetitioner/Additional District Munsif, Pudukottai have beensubstantiated.20. The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur has been appointedas an Inquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry against thewrit petitioner, has conducted the enquiry and submitted his findingdated 21.6.2007 to the High Court, Madras.21. Before the Inquiry Officer, the complainant has beenexamined as P.W.1 who has deposed that he has given the complaintEx P1 and his statement given before the Special Officer, VigilanceCell, High Court, Madras is Ex P2 and at that time, the delinquentwas the Additional District Munsif, Pudukottai before whom two casesviz., O.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995 have been pendingwhich were filed by his wife against one Subraj and the Judgment hasbeen pronounced on 30.1.2001 and one week prior to the pronouncementof the Judgment and an unacquainted person had come and met himstating that he has been sent by the Judge and the said person hascome and met him near the Pudukottai District Court and that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said person has informed him that the Judge Seetharaman has askedhim to come and meet him at the Central Lodge before 10.00p.m., inthe night and after two days, since he is not keeping good health aknown person has taken him in a TVS 50 and they had been to theCentral Lodge and that he alone has gone to the room , after askingthe person who accompanied him to remain near the door steps and inthe room the Judge alone was there and that the Judge has demandedRs.25,000/- from him for delivering favourable Judgment in two casesviz., O.S.No.501 of 1995 and 502 of 1995 filed by his wife andfurther to this informed that he has adequate evidence for his caseand therefore, the Judgment will have to be delivered in his favourand to this, the Judge has replied that he can deliver Judgment inany manner as he likes and he can also deliver different Judgmentand that he has not paid money demanded by the Judge and that theJudge has informed him that he will deliver Judgments against hiswife since the money has not been paid and that he has come out ofhis room and the matter has been posted for Judgment firstly on28.3.2001 and on that day, the Judgment was not delivered and theJudgment has been delivered only on 30.3.2001 and favourableJudgment has been rendered in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and that the suitin O.S.No.502 of 1995 has been dismissed and the documents producedfor O.S.No.501 of 1995 has been produced in O.S.No.502 of 1995 andhe has preferred appeal in A.S.No.76 of 2003.22. P.W.1 in his cross examination has deposed that he isserving as a Regional Manager of the Insurance Company atPudukottai and he knows that English year,month and the date and inhis complaint, he has not stated at what time, on what date, theunacquainted person sent by the Judge has come and met him at whatplace and further that the unacquainted person has come before oneweek the deliverance of Judgment has also not been stated in thecomplaint and while standing near the District Court, the saidunacquainted person has come and met him has also been not statedand on what date the said unacquainted person has come near theCourt has not been mentioned in Ex P1 complaint and further in Ex P1complaint, he has not stated that after the said person informedhim that two days later that he has not been keeping good health andtherefore a known person brought him in a TVS 50 to the Lodge, andhe has also not mentioned in the complaint as to who has brought himto the lodge and the person who has brought him has been standing atthe door steps has also not been mentioned in the complaint and inthe complaint in what floor and in what room of the lodge, theincident has occurred has not been mentioned specifically and thesedetails have not been mentioned specifically and these details havenot been mentioned in the enquiry of the Vigilance Officer and hiscomplaint is that enquiry in two cases, the Officer has demanded asum of Rs.12,500/- in each case and this has not been mentioned inhis complaint and totally a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been demanded hasbeen made a mention of in the complaint and if money is not tenderedthen the Judgment will go against him as spoken to by the Judge has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not been mentioned in his complaint and that he got tensed after thepronouncement of Judgement and hence he lodged the complaint. 23. It is further evidence of P.W.1 in his cross examinationthat in his complaint as well as in the enquiry, he has notmentioned the specific date on which he has met the Judge.24. P.W.2, the wife of the complainant P.W.1 in her evidencehas deposed that she has filed two cases viz., O.S.No.501 of 1995and 502 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,Pudukottai in the capacity as General Power of Attorney andO.S.No.501 of 1995 has been filed against the defendant praying forthe relief of declaration that the suit property belongs to her andalso for recovery of possession, besides claiming damages for usageof a sum of Rs.3,500/- from the defendant and for costs andO.S.No.502 of 1995 has also been filed for similar relief and shehas been examined as a witness in the case and on her side,documents were also marked and for Judgment the case has been postedto 28.3.2001 and on 30.3.2001, the Judgment has been delivered andwhen the case has been pending trial, her husband-P.W.1 informed herthat the delinquent Judge has demanded money from him and hereplied that the records are in their favour and why should themoney be paid. She also deposed that her husband only has beenlooking after the cases and in O.S.No.501 of 1995, the Judgment hasbeen delivered in her favour and O.S.No.502 of 1995, the Judgmenthas gone against her.25. P.W.2 in her cross examination has stated that she does notremember the date, time, during which the Judge has demanded moneyas informed by her husband and her husband has informed her that theJudge demanded some thing 2,3 days prior to the pronouncement of theJudgment and her husband is a Insurance Agent and her husbandinformed her that he has met the Judge on the date when the Judgeasked him to met and on the date when her husband has met theJudge , her husband has informed her about the same and she hasinformed the Vigilance Officer that one day before the deliveranceof Judgment, the Judge has demanded money from her husband and herhusband has given a complaint to the Vigilance, after few days andthat after 5 or 6 months the complaint has been given.26. P.W.3 Palanivel(Office Assistant) in his evidence hasstated that he has served as an Office Assistant with the writpetitioner/Officer when the Judge has been serving at Pudukottai asAdditional District Munsif and that the Judge has been staying inthe room of the Central Lodge on a monthly basis and he has beenstaying alone and that he used to go to his room for the purpose ofcleaning and at that time, along with him Office Assistant Mariappanwas also serving in the Additional District Munsif Court, and thathe was not staying in the room during night time along with theJudge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27. P.W.3 in his cross examination has specifically stated thatthe writ petitioner /officer has not been married and that his roomhas been in the upstairs and since the officer has been stayingalone since he is not having any family member, he was not stayingduring night time.28. P.W.4 Mariappan( Office Assistant) in his evidence hasstated that the writ petitioner/Judge has been staying in theCentral Lodge with whom he had served as an Office Assistant andsince he is a handicapped person, the Judge will not allow him to dothe work in the room and only another Office Assistant Palanivelused to do the work of the room in the lodge and one time, he hasgone along with Palanivel to the lodge to clean the room and duringlunch time, he used to buy meals to the Judge and he will not stayduring night time along with the Judge.29. P.W.5 Abdul Hameed (Junior Assistant cum Bench Clerk) inhis evidence has stated that from 28.4.1998 till his retirement heserved as Bench Clerk in Pudukottai, First Additional DistrictMunsif Court and at that time, till 30.4.2001, the writ petitionerserved as the First Additional District Munsif, Pudukottai and theJudge during his tenure has delivered Judgments in O.S.No.501 of1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995.30. P.W.5 in his cross examination has stated that the Judgewill perform any work at any time in Court itself and notes will begiven to the Steno in the Court itself and that the Steno will notbe called to the room and even during day time, the Office Assistantwill be in the Court and the Judge will not use them for hispersonal work and since the Judge has no family, for his work, theOffice Assistant will not go to the lodge.31. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner submitsthat the complainant viz; the husband of P.W.2 has filed a complaint2 ½ months after the pronouncement of Judgment in O.S.No.501 of 1995and O.S.No.502 of 1995 dated 30.3.2001 and further than P.W.1complainant in his evidence before the Inquiry Officer has statedthat one week prior to the deliverance of Judgment, an unacquaintedperson sent by the Judge has come and met him and before theVigilance Cell, P.W.1 has stated that prior to the deliverance ofJudgment in two cases through unknown person, the Judge Seetharamanhas asked him to come and meet him in the Central Lodge Pudukkottaiafter 10.00p.m.,during night, where he has been staying. But P.W.2the wife of P.W.1 in her cross examination before the InquiryOfficer has stated that one day prior to the deliverance ofJudgment, the Judge has demanded money from her husband and this hasbeen informed to the Vigilance Officer and also at one place in thecross examination P.W.2 has also stated that 2,3 days before thedeliverance of Judgment, her husband has informed her that the Judge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has demanded money and therefore, there is a contradiction theevidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the same cannot be relied upon. Itis also the contention of the learned senior counsel for the writpetitioner that P.W.2/wife of P.W.1 in her evidence before theInquiry Officer has stated that she does not remember the date, timeinformed by her husband as to the demand of the money made by thewrit petitioner and therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is not a directone and the same is only a hearsay evidence and the same is notsustainable in law.32. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the writpetitioner contends that in Ex P1 complaint, P.W.1 the complainanthas not mentioned that he has not well and that his friend has takenhim in a TVS 50 and parked the vehicle outside and then met the writpetitioner. But the same has not been made a mention of in thedeposition of P.W.1 when he has been examined by the Inquiry Officerand if really, the person who was reportedly taken P.W.1 in TVS 50has been examined, then, the truth might have been elicited and as amatter of fact, the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 will not help thecomplainant P.W.1 and in short, the finding rendered by the InquiryOfficer viz., The principal District Judge, Thanjavur is not anacceptable one and prays for allowing the writ petition.33. In the decision reported in S.Thirupathy-v- State of TamilNadu reported by its Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai(2004(3)MLJ 434) this Court has, inter alia, observed as follows:" The High Court has control over subordinateCourts under Art.235 of the Constitution ofIndia. In order to ensure strict disciplineamong the Judicial Officers of the State, astrict vigilance is necessary and so also astrict view in dealing with the JudicialOfficers/ Delinquents. That is necessary toweed out corrupt officials in the judiciary soas to ensure the purity of justice to hand outimpartial justice. Justice delivery system isone of the basic pillars of democracy and is abasic feature of the Constitution. The HighCourt has a great deal of responsibility in thisregard.Equally, the High Court has got theresponsibility to see that independence ofjudiciary is not in peril and that subordinateJudges are not subjected to undue harassment atthe hands of unscrupulous litigants andadvocates and see that independence of judiciaryis not shaken and the judicial officers areplaced in such a safe and strong positionenabling them to function efficiently withoutfear. The moment fear is inculcated in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ minds of the judicial officers, justice deliverysystem suffers a setback as a result of brow-beating by the disgruntled persons. More shouldbe the care and caution when a litigant before asubordinate Judge himself is the complainant andwho had an axe to grind having suffered anadverse judgment.In a judicial review, normally, appreciation ofevidence is not resorted to. But, when thefailure on the part of the authority to lookinto the material facts or evidence, which cutat the roots of the allegation and that too, aserious one like in the instant case, and thedisciplinary proceeding being quasi-judicial innature, not only should there be reasons, butthose reasons should have supporting material".34. In a decision reported in Government of Tamil Nadu-v-K.N.Ramamurthy(1997(7) Supreme Court Cases,101) the HonourableSupreme Court has held that ' The Tribunal or the Court caninterfere only if on the charges(read with imputation or particularsof the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity allegedcan be said to have been made out, or the charges framed arecontrary to any law'.35. In the decision reported in Union of India-v- K.K.Dhawan(1993(2) Supreme Court Cases, 56 at page 57)the Honourable SupremeCourt has held as follows:" When an officer in exercise of judicial orquasi-judicial powers acts negligently orrecklessly or in order to confer undue favour ona person he is no acting as a Judge. There is agreat reason and justice for holding in suchcases that the disciplinary action could betaken. It is one of the cardinal principles ofadministration of justice that it must be freefrom bias of any kind. The observation of theSupreme Court in V.D.Trivedi case that" theaction taken by the appellant was quasi-judicialand should not have formed the basis ofdisciplinary action" was made to buttress theultimate conclusion that the charge framedagainst the delinquent officer had not beenestablished and therefore, it could not beconstrued as laying down the law that in no casedisciplinary action could be taken if itpertains to exercise of quasi-judicial powers'.36. In the decision reported in Union of India -v-Duli Chand(2006(5) Supreme Court Cases 680 at page 681) the Hon'ble Supreme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court has held thus:" In K.K.Dhawan case(1993)2 SCC 56, Courtlisted six instances when an who exercisedjudicial or quasi-judicial acting negligentlyor recklessly could be proceeded against by wayof disciplinary action. The present case wouldfall squarely within the fourth instance listedtherein. The impugned decisions areaccordingly set aside and the order ofpunishment upheld". 37. Integrity is uprightness, honesty or purity, devotion toduty is faithful service. If a public Officer is required tomaintain integrity and to be devoted to duty, he is merely asked tokeep within the bounds of that administrative decency which goes bythe name of civilized administration.38. Generally speaking, the terms "misconduct" inter aliaenjoins/envisages breach of discipline although it would not bepossible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute'misconduct' and 'indiscipline' which however is wide enough toinclude wrongful omission or commission, whether done or omitted tobe done intentionally or unintentionally. Misconduct thoughincapable of precise definition on reflection, it receives itsconnotation from the context delinquency in performance and itseffect on the discipline and nature of duty. For example, it mightinvolve moral turpitude or improper or wrong or unlawful behaviourwhich is useful in character or a forbidden act, a transgression ofan established and definite rule of action or conduct but not mereerror of judgment or carelessness or negligence in performance ofone's duty.39. It is true that' Judicial integrity is not a privateventure but a public necessity and also it is to be borne in mindthat ' every Judge must at all times be conscious that he is underpublic gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which isunbecoming of the high office, he occupies and the public esteem inwhich that office is held'. 40. Also on behalf of the writ petitioner , it is submittedbefore this Court that an Inquiry Officer viz., The principalDistrict Judge, Tanjavur has not considered the written statementand written argument of the petitioner .41. The writ petitioner in his evidence as D.W.1 before theInquiry Officer has stated that he served as Additional DistrictMunsif, Pudukottai from 2.3.1998 to 30.4.2001 and since there is noattached quarters facility for the Additional District Munsif andmoreover since he was a bachelor, he was staying in Room No.6 ofthe Pudukottai Central Lodge which has two floors viz., down stair https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and upstair portion and that totally there were fifty rooms and tillhe has been transferred, he has been stayed in the lodge and that hedoes not know P.W.1 and he has come to know him at the time of letin evidence before the Inquiry Officer and when he has taken chargein his Court two cases viz., O.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of1995 were pending trial and P.W.2 has filed an application prayingto amend the plaint and the same has been dismissed and later anappeal has been filed before the High Court and as per the decisionin the appeal, the application has been filed to amend the plaintand the same has been allowed by him and the plaint has been amendedand before his predecessors an application to amend the plaint hasbeen filed and the same has been dismissed and this fact, he came toknow through the records and in O.S.No.501 of 1995, the defendanthas accepted the case of the plaintiff and has filed the writtenstatement and on that basis issues have been framed by hispredecessors and as per the order of Hon'ble High Court, he hasframed an additional issue and in the suit, on both sides, no oralevidence has been let in and only documents have been marked andsince the defendant has stated that he has no objection for passinga Judgment in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and also in lieu of the fact thatalready issues were framed he passed a Judgment in favour of theplaintiff.42. It is the further evidence of D.W.1 that in O.S.No.502 of1995 oral and documentary evidence had been let in on both sidesand the suit was hotly contested between the parties and onconsideration of oral and documentary evidence, he has come to theconclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief andultimately dismissed the suit in O.S.No.502 of 1995 and in bothsuits, P.W. 1 Paneerselvam is not a party and he has not appearedbefore the Court in plaintiff's two cases and adduced evidence andit is wrong to state that prior to the deliverance of Judgment intwo suits, P.W.1 has been asked by him to come and met at theCentral Lodge, after 10.00.p.m as spoken to by P.W.1 in his evidenceand it is false for P.W.1 to state that he has demanded a sum ofRs.12,500/- in each suit and in all, a sum of Rs.25,000/- fordelivering Judgments in the aforesaid cases in favour of theplaintiff and that P.W.1 either during his stay at the lodge orduring the period of pendency of the cases till their disposal ortill his transfer, has never mmet and spoken to him and the contraversion deposed by P.W.1 is a false one and more over he has notasked anyone to approach P.W.1 and to bring him to meet him and theevidence of P.W.1 in this regard P.W.1 is a false one.43. D.W.1(delinquent officer) in his cross examination hasdeposed that to some extent, he knows Civil Procedure Law and he hasdelivered two Judgments, two orders after assuming office and he isaware what kind of procedure to be followed since the defendant isaccepted the case of the plaintiff in the written statement and thathe has not delivered Judgment by following the provision of Order 12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rule 6 of CPC and in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995, hehas not followed Order 15 Rules and he has delivered Judgments intwo cases because they are related with each other and in both suitsviz., O.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995, the relief prayedfor and the properties are one and the same etc.44. Continuing further D.W.1 in his cross examination hasstated that he does not know whether an appeal has been filedagainst the Judgment delivered by him in O.S.No.502 of 1995 and thatthe said appeal has been allowed and in both the suits, thedocuments filed are the same. More over, D.W.1 in his reexamination has stated that in O.S.No.501 of 1995, the defendant inhis cross examination has accepted that the suit property is not inhis possession and therefore in the Judgment delivered by him , hehas come to the conclusion that the defendant is accepted the sameand accordingly decreed the suit. He has also delivered theJudgment in O.S.No.501 of 1995 on the basis of the defendant'sevidence in view of the fact that the full Judgment has to berendered, after the examination of the witness.45. As far as the present case is concerned, it is not indispute that the complainant P.W.1 and his wife P.W.2 are Tamilrefugees from Sri Lanka and they have been residing at Nadhamponniof Thirukokarnam in Pudukottai District. Admittedly, oneSadaiyan,son of Kandasamy and Muniyandi, son of Kandaiya @Kandasamy are also refugees from Srilanka, who are the neighboursof P.Ws 1 and 2. Indeed, the Government has allotted three cents oflands to each of them viz., Kandasamy and Kandaiya @ Kandasamy andprovided them with housing loans, which are later on been writtenoff. Thereafter, Kandasamy, Kandaiya @ Kandasamy have gone toNilgiris in search of Job. P.W.2 Parvathy, the wife of P.W.1, isthe power agent of the said Kandasamy and Kandaiya @ Kandasamy. As amatter of fact, P.W.2 has filed two cases viz., O.S.No.501 of 1995and O.S.No.502 of 1995 against Rasu @ Subraj on the file of thelearned Additional District Munsif, Pudukottai in her capacity asPower agent. In the two suits, the relief of declaration of titleof the plaintiff to the suit property, recovery of possession fromthe defendant, who has been tenant under the plaintiff and damagesof Rs.3,600/- for use and occupation and future damages have beensought for by the plaintiff.46. The defendant has repudiated the claim of the plaintiff inthe two suits by himself claiming title by virtue of an oral salefrom some unnamed Srilankan refugees. It is not a matter incontroversy that the writ petitioner/officer has tried the two suitsviz.,O.S.No.501 of 1995 and 502 of 1995 on his file and he hasdecreed the suit in O.S.No.501 of 1995 in part and dismissed therelief of recovery of damages of Rs.3,600/- for use and occupationand for future damages and he has dismissed O.S.No.502 of 1995 inentirety. In O.S.No.501 of 1995 on the file of the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Additional District, Pudukottai, the plaintiff Kandasamy has beenrepresented by his power agent Parvathy(P.W.2). In the said case,Rasu @ Subraj is the defendant. The Judgment delivered on 30.3.2001in O.S.No.501 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District MunsifCourt, Pudukottai has been marked as Ex P12 before the InquiryOfficer. Likewise, the Judgment delivered in O.S.No.502 of 1995dated 30.3.2001 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,Pudukottai has been marked as Ex P17. Significantly, in O.S.No.502of 1995, Kandaiya @ Kandasamy is the plaintiff represented by hispower agent Parvathy(P.W.2) and the defendant is Rasu @ Subraj.47. The specific charge against the writ petitioner/Officer isthat while he has been serving as Additional District Munsif,Pudukottai, he has called one Pannerselvam(Complainant-P.W.1) to hisroom at Central Lodge where he has been staying and demanded a sumof Rs.25,000/- as bribe for delivering a favourable Judgment inO.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995, the suits filed by hiswife(P.W.2 Parvathy) and on refusal to comply with the said demandby the complainant Paneerselvam, he has partly decreed the suit inO.S.No.501 of 1995 and in entirety dismissed the suit in O.S.No.502of 1995 even though the parties are the same and issues in bothsuits are similar and thereby he has indulged in corrupt practiceand conduct unbecoming thereby rendering himself liable to bepunished under Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal)Rules 1973.48. It is not out of place to point out that the strictadherence to the principles of Indian Evidence Act do not applyto the departmental . In the proceedings , the prosecution has toprove the charges against the delinquent/Officer on preponderanceall probabilities of case. In the present case on hand, theevidence of P.Ws 3 to 5 before the Inquiry Officer are all littleassistance to the complainant's side. P.W.1, the complainant who hasgiven complaint Ex P1 dated 23.5.2001 , has been serving as aRegional Manager of the Insurance Company at Pudukottai.Admittedly, he is not a novice. He has given a complaint dated23.5.2001 after a day of 53 days when the Judgments in two cases inissue have been delivered on 30.3.2001. Further, in his complaint inEx P1 dated 23.5.2001 addressed to the Special Officer, VigilanceCell, High Court, Madras, he has not mentioned the time, date andthe place and the name of the person purported to have been sent bythe Judge Seetharaman has met him and also in the complaint, he hasnot stated that one week prior to the deliverance of Judgment thatperson has come and more over, he has also not mentioned that whilestanding near the District Court, the said person has come and methim. Indeed, P.W.1 in his cross examination has tacitly admitted onwhat date, the said individual has come to see him near the Courthas not been made mention of in Ex.P1 complaint and added further hehas also candidly stated that two days after the person who informedhim since he has not been keeping well, a known person has taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ him in a TVS 50 to the Lodge and this has not been mentioned by himin ExP1 complaint and he has also not mentioned the name of theperson who has brought him to the Lodge in the complaint Ex P1. Itis significant to point out that in ExP1 complaint(P.W.1Complainant) has mentioned that D.W.1 Delinquent Officer hasdemanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for delivering a favourable Judgmentsin O.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995 filed by his wifeParvathy.Ex P1 Complaint, nowhere speaks of D.W1/Delinquent Officerviz., the writ petitioner demanding a sum of Rs.12,500/-in eachcase to render a favourable Judgment in the said two suits.49. At this stage, it is worth to recall the evidence of P.W.1(complainant) before the Inquiry Officer to the effect that one weekprior to the deliverance of Judgments , an unacquainted person sentby the Judge has come and met him and that person has informed himthat the Judge Seetharaman has asked him to meet the Judge at theCentral Lodge after 10.00p.m where the Judge has been staying andalso he has stated that the person who has taken him has been askedby him to stand at the door steps and that he alone has gone intothe room. But, conspicuously, this aspect does not find place in ExP1 complaint. The unacquainted person sent by the writpetitioner/Officer who has informed the complainant to meet theJudge at the Central Lodge at 10.00p.m has not been identified bythe complainant's side and further that person has not been examinedas witness on the side of the complainant. Likewise, the personknown to P.W.1 who has taken him in TVS 50 has also not beenidentified and examined in the case. There non examination in thedepartmental enquiry on the complainant's side before the InquiryOfficer is not a favourable circumstances in favour of thecomplainant's side.50. Apart from the above, the evidence of the complainant P.W.1as to the effect that before the deliverance of Judgment one weekprior to it an unacquainted person sent by the writpetitioner/officer has come and met him and that the said person hascome and met him near the Pudukottai District Court and that thesaid person has informed him that the Judge Seetharaman has askedhim to come and meet him at the Central Lodge at 10.00p.m where hehas been staying and after two days, since he was not keeping goodhealth, he was taken in a TVS 50 by a known person and they gone tothe lodge and the person who has taken him into TVS 50 has beenasked to stand at the door steps and he alone has entered into theroom where the Judge alone has been there and that the Judge hasdemanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to render favourable Judgment inO.S.No.501 of 1995 and 502 of 1995 filed by his wife. But theevidence of P.W.2, the wife of P.W.1 in her cross examination hasclearly deposed that she does not remember the date and time, theJudge has demanded the money as informed by her husband and herhusband has informed that the demand of money has been made 2,3 daysbefore the deliverance of Judgments. Therefore, from the evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as narrated above, there is contradiction orvariation in regard to the exact date on which the writpetitioner/Officer has demanded money prior to the deliverance ofJudgment in two suits in issue and as such their evidence is notworthy of credence and the same is not accepted. Also that theevidence of P.W.2 that the delinquent Officer has demanded moneyfrom her husband P.W.1 is only a hearsay one, as spoken to by P.W.1to her viz., P.W.2 and what remains is the evidence of P.W.1, thecomplainant, and according too him, he has gone to the room of theCentral Lodge at Pudukottai where the writ petitioner/Officer hasbeen staying and the Officer demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- fordelivering a favourable Judgment in the two suits filed by his wife.In effect, the allegation against the writ petitioner/Officer thathe has demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000/- for delivering a favourableJudgments in two suits instituted by the wife of the complainantP.W.1 is a serious one. Even a solitary evidence of acomplaint/witness in a departmental enquiry if it inspires theconfidence of Courts and satisfies its judicial conscience, then,the same can be accepted as a clinching and unimpeachable one. Inaddition, the proof of a fact depends upon the degree ofprobability of its having existed.51. It is not in dispute that P.W.2, the wife of P.W.1 who hasrepresented the plaintiff in the two suits in O.S.No.501 of 1995 andO.S.No.502 of 1995 as a power agent has obtained partly favourableJudgment in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and an order of dismissal ofO.S.No.502 of 1995.52. One cannot brush aside an important fact that thedisciplinary proceedings are being quasi Judicial in nature and thereason arrived at by the Inquiring Authority must be based onreasons and supporting materials. In the present case on hand,though the evidence of P.W.1( Complainant)is to the effect that thewrit petitioner/delinquent Officer has demanded a bribe ofRs.25,000/- from him for delivering a favourable judgment in the twocases in issue at the Central Lodge at Pudukottai after 10.00p.m oneweek prior to the deliverance of Judgment, the same has not beencorroborated in material particulars to the satisfaction of thiscourt.53. Further the word" Corroboration" is not a technical term ofart, it means by itself no more than evidence tending to confirm,support or strengthen other evidence. " Coroboration" is nothingother than evidence which confirms or supports or stengthens otherevidence.54. Suffice it for this Court to point out that a need forCorroboration and for accepting evidence of any witness arises onlywhen the Court is not satisfied in regard to the credibility of aparticular witness. In short, "corroboration' is simply rule of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prudence and not one of rule of law and it is entirely the matter ofJudicial discretion. Furthermore, the purpose of 'corroboration' isnot to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient orsuspect or incredible but only to confirm or support the evidencewhich is sufficient and satisfactory and credible and corroborativeevidence will only fill its role if it itself is completelycredible.Moreover, the term ' corroborate' is to give strength ; togive support, to give additional strength; to make more certain; toadd weight or credibility to a thing. 55. Inasmuch as the evidence of P.W.1 in regard to theallegation that the writ petitioner has demanded a bribe ofRs.25,000/- for rendering a favourable judgment in two cases inissue has not been corroborated by any other acceptable evidence.More so, there is contradiction in regard to the evidence of P.W.1and P.W.2 as to the date on which the writ petitioner has demanded abribe of Rs.25,000/- from P.W.1. The role of the complainant sideis onerous to bring home the charge of demand of bribe against thewrit petitioner and in the present case on hand, on the side of thecomplainant, the same has not been discharged to the satisfaction ofthis Court and therefore, we are not in agreement with the contraview taken by the Inquiry Officer viz., the Principal DistrictJudge, Thanjavur in his report dated 21.6.2007.56. Coming to the aspect that the writ petitioner/Officer haspartly decreed the suit in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and in entiretydismissed the suit in O.S.No.502 of 1995, it is the categoricalevidence of the writ petitioner(D.W.1) before the Inquiry Officerthat he has not delivered Judgment as per Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC andthat he has not followed the ingredients of Order 15 in regard tothe suit in O.S.No.501 of 1995 and O.S.No.502 of 1995 and that sincethe two suits are connected, he has delivered Judgments in twocases.57. It is useful to refer to Order 12 Rule 6 of Civil ProcedureCode relating to the Judgment on admissions which enjoins asfollows:"1) Where admissions of fact have been madeeither in the pleading or otherwise, whetherorally or in writing the court may at any stageof the suit, either on the application of anyparty or of its motion and without waiting forthe determination of any other question betweenthe parties, make such order or give suchjudgment as it may think fit having regard tosuch admissions2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under Sub-r(1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordancewith the Judgment and the decree shall bear thedate on which the Judgment was pronounced." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

58. It is to be noted that the ingredients of Order 12 Rule 6of CPC are only discretionary and not a mandatory one and as matterof fact the meaning of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC should not be undulynarrowed down because the object of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC is enablea party to obtain a speedy Judgment. Also an application of Order 12Rule 6 of CPC is to be exercised by a Court of Law very carefully,sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Inasmuch as theingredients of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC to be followed by a Court ofLaw is only a discretionary one and not a mandatory one,the act ofthe writ petitioner, in not passing a Judgment immediately thoughthe defendant in the said suit has accepted in his written statementand in the additional written statement the case of the plaintiff,can only be construed as a case of not following the procedure asenunciated under Civil Procedure Code for which no motives can beattributed to him, particularly in view of the fact that theallegation of bribe made against the petitioner was not at allproved. 59. As regards the issue of the writ petitioner/delinquentOfficer dismissing O.S.No.502 of 1995 in entirety by his order dated30.3.2001 against the plaintiff in the said suit, represented by thepower of Attorney P.W.2, it is to be pointed out that the writpetitioner in paragraph 9 of his Judgment has inter alia held that'just because Ex A2 document is in the hands of P.W.1, it cannot betaken into account that through Ex A1, P.W.1 has managed the samefor the reason that in Pudukottai District, the properties allottedto the Srilankan Refugees by the Government, the refugees afterreceiving money from the others have gone to Tea plantations indifferent stations in connection with the job and this fact comes tobe known to the Court from many cases and also in later portion ofparagraph 9 of his Judgment in O.S.No.502 of 1995, the writpetitioner has also observed that as regards the allotment of a landto the Srilankan Refugees a sale deed cannot come into existence etcand therefore D.W.1(Defendant) has purchased the properties from theaforesaid Kandasamy through oral sale as opined by it. 60. At this stage, it is significant for this Court to pointout that in the written statement and in the additional writtenstatement of the defendant in O.S.No.502 of 1995, the defendant hasnot averred anything in regard to the factum of the oral sale , thedate on which the said sale has come into existence, the amount ofsale consideration and the name of the vendor. Therefore, theobservations made by the writ petitioner/officer in his judgment inO.S.No.502 of 1995 dated 30.3.2001 referred to earlier are not basedon sound principles of knowledge of law and procedure. ButA.S.No.76 of 2003 filed by the plaintiff before the PrincipalDistrict Judge,Pudukottai, the appeal has been allowed with costs on7.2.2003 holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief ofdeclaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suit property against the defendant in the suit and ultimately theJudgment delivered by the writ petitioner in O.S.No.502 of 1995dated 30.3.2001 was set aside and further a direction was issued tothe respondent/defendant to deliver the possession of the suitproperty to the appellant/plaintiff within a month from the date ofthe Judgment. As against the rejection of claim made in the plainttowards damages in respect of use and occupation in O.S.No.501 of1995, the plaintiff has not preferred any appeal.61. It is to be pointed out that from the records place beforeus, we are able to see that the petitioner joined in the service inthe year 1991 and this impugned action has been initiated againsthim in the year 2001 that is within a short period of three years ofhis joining the service. At this juncture we deem it proper to citethe decision in ISHWAR CHAND JAIN V. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ANDHARYANA AND ANOTHER (1988) 3 SCC 370, wherein the petitioner wasappointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge on probation fora period of two years in accordance with Rule 10(1) of the PunjabSuperior Judicial Rules 1963 and while he was posted at Hissar, theBar Association of Hissar has passed a resolution against him as aresult of which he was transferred from Hissar to Narnaul asAdditional District and Sessions Judge and while he was posted atNarnaul, inquiry into certain complaints against him was held by aJudge of the High Court and after the inquirythe High Court at its meeting held on 21.3.1985, resolved that thepetitioners work and conduct has not been satisfactory during hisprobationary period and as such his services deserved to bedispensed with forthwith and under those circumstances the Hon'bleApex Court has held as follows;"The High Court had no relevant material incoming to the conclusion that the appellant'swork and conduct were not satisfactory duringhis probationary period. Some of the materialswhich were taken into account were non-existentand the others were not relevant and further theallegations which were taken into considerationremained unsubstantiated. The resolution passedby the Bar Association against the appellant waswholly unjustified and the complaints made bythe advocates were motivated which did notdeserve any credit. Even the vigilance judgeafter holding enquiry did not record any findingthat the appellant was guilty of any corruptmotive or that he had not acted judicially. Allthat was said against him was that he had actedimproperly in granting adjournments. Havingregard to the entire material, it must be heldthat the High Court committed error in holdingthat the appellant's work and conduct were notsatisfactory and that his services were liable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to be terminated.""Every judicial officer is likely to commitmistake of some kind or the other in passingorders in the initial stage of his service whicha mature judicial officer would not do.However, if the orders are passed without theirbeing any corrupt motive, the same should beover looked by the High Court and properguidance should be provided to him. If afterwarning and guidance the officer on probation isnot able to improve, his services should beterminated.""Under the Constitution, the High Court hascontrol over the subordinate judiciary. Whileexercising that control it is under aconstitutional obligation to guide and protectjudicial officers by ignoring ill-conceived ormotivated complaints made by unscrupulouslawyers and litigants. An independent andhonest judiciary is a sine qua non for rule oflaw. If Judicial officers are under constantthreat of complaint and enquiry on triflingmatters and if High Court encourages anonymouscomplaints to hold the field the subordinatejudiciary will not be able to administer justicein an independent and honest manner. Similarly,if the members of the Bar Association passresolution against the presiding officersworking in subordinate courts without therebeing any justifiable cause it would bedifficult for judicial officers to perform theirjudicial functions and discharge theirresponsibilities in an objective and unbiasedmanner."(emphasis supplied)62. Also in D.AMALADOSS-vs-STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THESECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT (COURTS-1-A) CHENNAI ANDANOTHER(2006) 4 MLJ 1360), a Division Bench of this Court, headed byone of us(ELIPE DHARMA RAO,J)while dealing with the case of thejudicial officer who was dismissed from service after conducting anenquiry with a delay of six years in initiating and completing theenquiry, based on the complaint given by persons involved incriminal cases pending before the said Judicial Officer, has quashedthe departmental proceedings and the order of dismissal, observingas follows:"Departmental proceedings cannot be initiatedagainst Judicial Officers on the basis of ill-conceived or motivated complaints made byunscrupulous litigants and lawyers. Order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dismissal from service, passed against theJudicial Officer on the basis of complaint madeby persons involved in criminal cases are liableto be quashed." (emphasis supplied)63. Similar is the situation in the case on hand also. Thecomplainant(P.W.1) is the brain behind the filing of two suits byhis wife(P.W.2). Since an unfavourable Judgment was passed in one ofthe said suits, he has given the false complaint against thepetitioner with a long delay which practice should not beencouraged. If such a practice is encouraged and acted upon, therewill be no security for the Judicial Officers in rendering theirservices of dispensation of justice without any fear or favour.64. We are aware that 'Judicial Review is not an appeal from adecision but a Review of the manner in which the decision has beenmade and it is not directed to the decision, but to the decisionmaking process. The powers of Judicial Review are meant to ensurethat an individual receives a fair treatment.' However, as hasalready been pointed out by us supra, as against the impugned orderof removal from service passed against the petitioner, he has noappellate remedy,so as to assess the factual aspect of the case andthe only remedy available to him is to file a writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, which he did by filingthis writ petition. Therefore, to uphold the majesty of justice, wehave discussed the evidence available on record. Though on the sideof the petitioner a plea was taken that no opportunity of hearingwas given to him either by the first respondent or the secondrespondent or even by the Hon'ble Administrative Committee or by theFull Court of this Court, on going through the entire records we aresatisfied that the petitioner was given adequate and sufficientopportunities and there was no violation of the principles ofnatural justice.65. When the writ petition has come up for hearing on 4.9.2009the first respondent counsel was directed to ascertain thepossibility of reducing the punishment to the petitioner and theAdministrative Committee of this Court in its meeting held on1.9.2009 has resolved to place this matter in the next Full Courtmeeting for its deliberation and the Full Court of this Court, inthe meeting held on 3.9.2009, has resolved to direct the RegistrarGeneral Madras to instruct the learned counsel appearing for theHigh Court to make a statement before the Division Bench of thisCourt that 'the Hon'ble Court may decide about the punishment, shortof removal' and accordingly this Court has been informed.66. Be that as it may, in the present case on hand taking intoaccount the over all assessment of the facts and circumstances ofthe case in a cumulative and integral fashion, since the prime https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ charge of bribery against the officer has not been established tothe satisfaction of this Court and even the other charge that thepetitioner on account of the refusal of the complaint/P.W.1 to paythe bribe as demanded, has partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.501 of1995 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.502 of 1995 by corrupt motivein favour of the defendant has also not been proved to thesubjective satisfaction and Judicial conscience of this Court, andviewed in that perspective, we are inclined to allow the writpetition to prevent an aberration of justice and to promotesubstantial cause of justice.67. As we are of the considered view that the petitioner wasunnecessarily made to suffer at the ill-motivated complaint made bythe complainant (P.W.1), the principle of "no work, no pay" has noapplication to the case on hand whatsoever and therefore he isentitled to all the service and monetary benefits.68. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. We set asidethe impugned order of penalty of removal from service imposed on thewrit petitioner contained in G.O(D) NO.791 Home(Courts-1) Dated4.7.2008 and order reinstatement of the petitioner with all monetaryand service benefits as permissible and attached to the post ofCivil Judge (Junior Division). The respondents are directed toimplement the order of this Court within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.Sgl/sgSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Registrar General, High Court, High Court Buildings, Chennai-104.2.The Secretary to Govt., Of Tamil Nadu Home (Courts I) Department, Fort St. Geroge, Chennai-9.3. The Section Officer, Legal Cell, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.69997+ 1 cc to Ms. AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate SR No.69708NG(CO)SR/22.12.2009 ORDER IN W.P.No.7941 of 2009