High Court · 2025

1 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 2022BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 16.12.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN ANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHIW.P.(MD)No.5580 of 2022J.Anushia ... Petitioner Vs.1. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi. ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in D.E.No.1 of 2019 dated 31.12.2021 imposing the punishment of “removal from service” and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. For Appellant : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja, for Mr.A.R.KannappanFor Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman * * * 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 2022J U D G M E N THeard both sides. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi vide proceedings dated 28.07.2009. She was suspended from service in the year 2013 on the ground of insubordination. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. The proceedings concluded on 15.04.2014. The period of suspension was treated as punishment and revoked. She was called upon to report for duty within three days. The petitioner failed to do so. She chose to remain absent for several more months. Reminder was sent to the petitioner on 07.07.2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi. To this reminder also, there was no response. Vide representation dated 05.01.2016 addressed to the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, the petitioner appears to have sought posting. Thereupon, charge memo was issued on 31.01.2019 containing two articles of charge. Since the writ petitioner's explanation was not received, enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The enquiry officer rendered finding that the charges have not been 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 2022established. The enquiry report dated 16.05.2019 was submitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi. The Chief Judicial Magistrate differed with the findings of the enquiry report. Communication to this effect was sent to the writ petitioner vide letter dated 09.12.2021. After receiving the writ petitioner's further representation, the impugned order dated 31.12.2021 came to be passed removing the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner raised the following three contentions:- a) The punishment of removal from service is disproportionate. b) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi was not competent to pass the impugned order. The impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction. c) The principles of natural justice have been breached as the enquiry report was not furnished. 4. Per contra, the first respondent had filed a detailed counter affidavit and the learned Standing counsel for the Registry took us 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 2022through the averments set out therein. He submits that the impugned order is well reasoned and that it does not call for any interference. 5. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. 6. As already mentioned, the charge memo dated 31.01.2019 contained two articles of charge. They are as follows:- “ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;.1jpUkjp.N[.mD\pah> mYtyf cjtpahsh;> ePjpj;Jiw eLth;> tpiuT ePjpkd;wk; (eLth; epiy)> J}j;Jf;Fb jw;NghJ (Stated away from Duty) Mfpa ePtph; Jiwthhpa tprhuiz vz;.7/13y; ePtph; kPz;Lk; gzpapy; Nru 15.04.2014 Njjp md;W cj;juT toq;fpAk; mjd; efy; 22.04.2014k; Njjp md;Wk;> jw;fhypf gzp ePf;fk; uj;J nra;J kPz;Lk; gzp epakdk; nra;ag;gl;l cj;jutpd; efy; ehs; 23.04.2014 md;W mDg;gg;gl;Lk; ckf;F mYtyf Fwpg;ghiz ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; %yk; f.vz;.1496 Njjp:23.07.2014 md;W mDg;gg;gl;Lk; ePtph; mjw;F fPo;g;gbahky; gzpapy; NrUtjw;F ve;jtpj Kaw;rpAk; Kfhe;jpuk; vJTk; njhptpf;fhky; eph;thfj;jpw;F ,ilA+W nra;jjd; 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 2022fhuzj;jhy; ck;kPJ jkpo;ehL Fbikg;gzp(xOq;F kw;Wk; Nky;KiwaPL) tpjp 17(b)d;gb Fw;wr;rhl;L tidag;gl;Ls;sJ. Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;.2NkNy fz;l ml;ltiz vz;.2y; $wg;gl;Ls;sgb jpUkjp.N[.mD\pah> mYtyf cjtpahsh;> ePjpj;Jiw eLth;> tpiuT ePjpkd;wk; (eLth; epiy)> J}j;Jf;Fb jw;NghJ (Stated away from Duty) Mfpa ePtph; Jiwthhpa tprhuiz vz;.7/13y; 15.04.2014 Njjp md;W kPz;Lk; gzpapy; Nru cj;juT toq;fpAk; jw;fhypf gzp ePf;fk; uj;J nra;J kPz;Lk; gzp epakdk; nra;ag;gl;L kPz;Lk; gzpapy; Nru cj;juT toq;fp mjd; efYk; ,t;tYtyf Fwpg;ghiz f.vz;.1495 ehs;:06.07.2014 kw;Wk; 23.07.2014 Mfpa Njjpfspy; ckf;F mDg;gg;gl;Lk; mij ePtph; ngw;W nfhz;L gzpapy; kPz;Lk; Nru ve;jtpj Kaw;rpAk; vLf;fhkYk; cldbahf Kfhe;jpuk; vJTk; njhptpf;fhky; myl;rpakhfTk; flik czh;tpd;wp ,Ue;jjhy; ,e;j nray; jkpo;ehL muR mYtyh; ed;dlj;ij tpjp(20)f;F Kuzhf ,Ue;jjhYk; ck;kPJ jkpo;ehL Fbikg;gzp (xOq;F kw;Wk; Nky;KiwaPL) tpjp 17(b)d; gb Fw;wr;rhl;L tidag;gl;Ls;sJ.” 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 20227. It is true that the enquiry officer rendered a finding that the charges framed against the writ petitioner have not been proved. A copy of the enquiry report has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. We can only express our shock and surprise at the findings rendered by the enquiry officer. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner's suspension was revoked. She was re-posted as Office Assistant in Fast Track Court(Magisterial Level), Thoothukudi and called upon to report for duty on 23.04.2014. It is admitted that this communication was received by the writ petitioner. A further reminder was also issued on 07.07.2014. It was also sent to the writ petitioner's correct address. A reminder was also issued. A formal memo dated 23.07.2014 was also issued informing the petitioner that she continued to remain unauthorisedly absent and that she must appear in person to offer her explanation. This communication was also received. Admittedly, the writ petitioner chose to keep quiet till 05.01.2016. When on the own showing of the writ petitioner, she remained unauthorisedly absent, we fail to understand as to how the charge levelled against her could be said to be not proved. The disciplinary authority / the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 2022rightly deferred with the findings of the enquiry officer. When a person chose to remain unauthorisedly absent for more than eighteen months, the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. We reject the first contention put forth by the petitioner. 8. The writ petitioner was employed as Office Assistant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi. For such a staff, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is the competent authority / disciplinary authority. Therefore, the contention that the impugned order is without jurisdicition, is liable to be rejected. 9. There is however, some force in the petitioner's contention that the failure to serve the enquiry report is violation of principles of natural justice. In fact, the disciplinary authority / Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have served the report to the writ petitioner. Though there is infraction of procedure, on this sole ground, we do not propose to interfere. It is not as if, the writ petitioner has been found guilty of misconduct for the first time. Even in the year 2013, she was found to have been guilty of insubordination. She was placed 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 2022under suspension. The charges were held to be proved. Then, the learned Principal District Judge revoked the suspension and imposed the punishment treating the suspension period alone as punishment. The writ petitioner ought to have reported to duty immediately thereafter. In fact, based on the materials on record, we are not able to notice that the writ petitioner reported to duty. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be quashed. The writ petitioner was not interested to join duty during the relevant time. Even though the background of the writ petitioner appears to be evoke our sympathy, we are not in a position to grant any relief. The writ petitioner was out of service from 2013 to till date. Therefore, the impugned order is sustained. This writ petition stands dismissed. The benefits payable to the petitioner shall be settled without any delay. No costs. (G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R.KALAIMATHI, J.) 16th December 2025 NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoPMU8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 2022To:1. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 W.P.(MD)NO.5580 OF 2022G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ANDR.KALAIMATHI, J.PMUW.A.(MD)No.5580 Of 202216.12.202510/10